Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => Resonance Circuits and Systems => Topic started by: tinman on November 10, 2017, 04:53:19 PM

Title: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 10, 2017, 04:53:19 PM
After receiving a PM from AlianGrey,i have decided to open this thread.

This thread will be a place where we replicate/build to the exact specs,any claimed OU device.
We will need actual builders here,and not just keyboard jockeys.

This thread will be moderated such as to keep it on the straight and narrow,and all comments must be related to the topic/build at the time.

AlianGrey asked in the PM--> what about the Henry Moray device and the Tesla patent and the EV Grey device.
I asked--what devices,and what patent?.

So,if you are a bedini,Ed Grey,Henry Moray,or any other type of fan,and you believe one of them to be an OU device,just place your exact schematic and build specifications here,and i(and hopefully others) will build it to your specification's.

Once you are happy with the build,we will get down to accurate power measurements.

So,who is up first?--what you got?.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on November 10, 2017, 05:08:12 PM
Does it also pertain to patented devices ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 10, 2017, 05:11:33 PM
Does it also pertain to patented devices ?

Hi Forest.

Any device that has the designer claim it as an OU device.

All you need to supply,is exact build schematics--so as we dont have them say--oh,you did not build it right.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 10, 2017, 06:24:50 PM
If the Community will help the builders with Funding here ?
100% transparent funding ?

this could really be a wonderful place to explore claims?
and also there would be no real limit to what could be looked at here [due to financial limitations ]

and it would also be Fair to the dedicated builders here [and elsewhere] who have put in years of open source selfless work at no cost to this community.

there is a limit ..new projects should have community support, I have a feeling Forest's investigation is quite expensive and involved [if its what he has mentioned in the past]

if this thread gets roots [interest] we can talk to the Boss [our host Stefan] about how to do this funding for these bigger claims .

the problem has been the governments and Taxes ,some fellows have no interest in getting funds sent due to the Tax liabilities
which may be attached to those funds ,and if Stefan [or anyone else ] handles money for this group its a tax problem .

a separate thread should be started for this if this becomes a possibility [Funding here]

the obvious solutions of Paypal and such are not acceptable to some here ?

you must understand the problem ,if we send money to a builder for parts [no income]
he gets charged taxes by his government even tho he is making no money ?
and worse yet all his time spent on top of that ??



I am confident we can sort this !

we have many really good projects sitting waiting for resources ....
really good projects !

a separate thread or system to qualify  these projects and help manage resources would also need doing
we need more people /volunteers for this if it happens !

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: profitis on November 10, 2017, 11:00:07 PM
"and also there would be no real limit to what could
be looked at here [due to financial limitations ]"

No frigginlimitpal
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 11, 2017, 12:57:52 PM
Well as much as i appreciate what Chet is trying to do,i am happy to fund my own builds--with in reason.

So,no takers yet  :o
Where are the free energy Bedini fans?

Anyway,for your entertainment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06xFhUHFnx8
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 04:34:50 PM
Ok Brad.

Here's one for you.

The one that " Mythbusters " allegedly botched.

Do you, or anyone know of any successful replications? The device, " allegedly " ran for years.   :o

Cheers Grum.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 04:49:55 PM
As a suggestion, perhaps an " old school " motor with field windings may be advantageous.

A bit like this little beastie....

Cheers Grum.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on November 11, 2017, 04:51:20 PM
Done. http://changingpower.net/africa-and-free-energy/  :P
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 05:14:06 PM
what's an energizer....

                                 ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 05:20:45 PM
But seriously....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on November 11, 2017, 06:12:13 PM


Also noted the 12kv......  this ain't no toy....  no indication of where the 12kv is coming from or where it's going..  replicate at your own risk.....

Hi,

The 12 kV was a typo the journalist or the reporter should have written 12 kW I think.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stupify12 on November 11, 2017, 06:28:07 PM
Try to search Youtube : Flywheel Free Energy Generator devices. That drawing has been proven and tested for many replicators, they replicate base on Chas Campbell design. Many has never seen the Watson machine.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on November 11, 2017, 08:46:45 PM

right.....  I too recall reading somewhere that it was a typo...  what if it wasn't a typo though...  folk will be hard pressed trying to reproduce a 12kw claim, however, it may prove to be a worthy lesson, learning what it takes to produce 12kv in the "suggested" manner...

Well, Peter Lindemann described the Watson machine as close as he possibly could from witnesses and from 'logical deductions' in the "Bedini SG the Complete Advanced Handbook", see chapter 7.

Some hints: "The Watson machine was discharging 45000 uF (3 x 15000) capacitors charged to about 50 V, once a second into the batteries. ... John Bedini said that the relay timing was set for "once per second" switching, meaning that the machine would run the motor from the battery for one second while the capacitors were being charged. Then the relay would switch, and the machine would run from the flywheel while the capacitors discharged into the battery followed by the rest of the whole second of Energizer impulses going straight to the battery. At the end of the 2nd second, the relay would switch again, and the cycle would repeat. The method allowed 100% of the output of the Energizer to be transferred to the battery while the motor runs from the battery only 50% of the time. ... The motor running at high speed while the very large flywheel ran at a lower speed provided a very stable operation to the Energizer and maintained a relatively low power requirement to the motor. ... There were two 12 V batteries wired in parallel."

All in all, if we accept all these, then it is unlikely there was 12 kV involved and the 12 kW power number surely remains questionable,  even though the huge flywheel were capable of storing very high kinetic energy because its OD was estimated 61.4 cm, its weight was 46 kg cast iron and its RPM was estimated at 500 through a gear reduction anywhere between 6 to 1 and 10 to 1, driven from a 24 V series wound air craft starter motor. One wonders whether Jim Watson run the 24 V motor from the 12 V batteries that were said to be wired in parallel by Peter L, that is a possibility of course. (Jim Watson did not let Bedini to examine the machine closely...)   

So the performance of the Watson machine still remains a mystery...

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 11, 2017, 09:08:27 PM
Here is a link to a thread by someone that claims he was successful in building the Bedini/Watson machine.  He originally made an offer to me to let me come see it in operation.  Then he said he was moving.  After he got moved I tracked him down again but he said he was on the road all the time with a new job.  I never did get to see it in person.  I did not take time to go back through the whole thread but I believe there was a video or two of it operating.  And there were several pictures and drawings if I recall correctly.  Might be worth looking into his claims.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 11, 2017, 09:27:32 PM
Some hints: "The Watson machine was discharging 45000 uF (3 x 15000) capacitors charged to about 50 V, once a second into the batteries. ... J

If the caps were completely discharged every second (which they probably weren't if they were discharging into a battery),
and then fully recharged to 50V every second, it would work out to 56.25 Watts output to the batteries. If the capacitors were only being
partially discharged into the batteries every second, then the power output from the discharging caps would be less than 56.25 Watts.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 11, 2017, 09:42:15 PM
Here is a link to a thread by someone that claims he was successful in building the Bedini/Watson machine.  He originally made an offer to me to let me come see it in operation.  Then he said he was moving.  After he got moved I tracked him down again but he said he was on the road all the time with a new job.  I never did get to see it in person.  I did not take time to go back through the whole thread but I believe there was a video or two of it operating.  And there were several pictures and drawings if I recall correctly.  Might be worth looking into his claims.

Hi Carroll.

It seems you forgot the link.   :)

A " 24 volt series wound aircraft starter motor ". Starter motors really " pull the juice " way beyond 12 Kw.... However I'm more inclined to the 12 Kv statement based upon the high voltage spikes I got when playing with Bedini's SSG.

Gearing was also mentioned, looking at the picture everything is " in line " could the motor have had a built in epicyclic gearbox?

Cheers Graham.

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 11, 2017, 10:07:29 PM

http://www.energeticforum.com/john-bedini/10830-bizzys-bedini-machine-aka-watson-machine.html?highlight=Bizzy

Old age sure causes memory problems.  LOL

Thanks Graham for catching that.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: norman6538 on November 11, 2017, 11:16:10 PM
Since John Bedini passed then is Jim Watson around?

As I understand John's original energizer it had 2 parts to the rotation cycle.
One to turn mechanically and the other to generate current. In the case of the school
girl motor which everybody got excited about it had 2 outputs 1. mechanical ie would
drive a fan and 2. electrical to charge the battery which was usually wasted power that
was used to effectively make the battery run the mechanical setup longer....

Then everybody went on to the window motor. I did not follow that one.
Maybe somebody else can comment on that.

But as for known overunity that can be demonstrated, the selection is slim to non.

However if you recall Naudin had a bingo fuel generator that looped - made gas that
ran the motor that ran the generator/welder that made the gas....
It behooves me that nobody picked up on the. To me its another lifter project of more
potential value.

Norman

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:18:55 AM

We are on the same page.....however.....in light of all the copying and pasting that was going on back in the day.....and this coupled to my own endeavours, I am inclined to think that it wasn't a typo...  in the right circuit, 12kv can work wonders... 


15uF @ 12kv nets you a tad over 1k joules....
170uF @ 12kv nets you a tad over 12k joules.... yeah.... 


I think I am going to stick with 12kv Gylula......







Regards

I see problems with the original circuit/schematic being 12Kv

First problem--dumping 12Kv into a 12 or 24 volt battery?  :o
Second problem--12Kv will jump a gap of about 7mm,and so we would have one hell of a light show at the commutator switch.

Quote
on another note.... me thinks something's not quite right with the circuit....but that's me....

I see in the original black and white circuit,there is no FWBR across the energizer.
But there is one in the Bedini version.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:21:23 AM
If the caps were completely discharged every second (which they probably weren't if they were discharging into a battery),
and then fully recharged to 50V every second, it would work out to 56.25 Watts output to the batteries. If the capacitors were only being
partially discharged into the batteries every second, then the power output from the discharging caps would be less than 56.25 Watts.

The caps would only drop down to battery voltage at best,so they will never be fully discharged.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:31:13 AM
author=Grumage link=topic=17491.msg512951#msg512951 date=1510432935]



Quote
Starter motors really " pull the juice " way beyond 12 Kw....

Close to Grum.
To pull 12Kw,a 24v starter motor would have to be drawing 500 amps,which is very likely under full load at a 100% duty cycle.

But here we have the motor running at 2500RPM !apparently!,and at about a 25% duty cycle.
At 2500RPM,the motor would be producing a lot of BEMF,and so the current draw would be a lot lower--closer to say 50 amps.

So 50 x 24 is 1200 watts,at a duty cycle of around 25% = 300 watts.

Quote
Gearing was also mentioned, looking at the picture everything is " in line " could the motor have had a built in epicyclic gearbox?

I also see no gearbox.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:33:38 AM
.


However if you recall Naudin had a bingo fuel generator that looped - made gas that
ran the motor that ran the generator/welder that made the gas....
It behooves me that nobody picked up on the. To me its another lifter project of more
potential value.

Norman

As both the motor and hydrogen generator both run at high losses,i doubt it was a self runner.

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:58:43 AM
So,is it going to be the Bedini energizer?

I have modified the below schematic to include the cap--would this be correct?

I have all the parts needed
The motor
The duel pole-duel throw relay,rated at 60 amp's.
A 38kg flywheel
4x high current 10 000Uf 63v caps
Magnets ?--any one know what type of magnets John used in his energizer,as he always seem'd to have a soft spot for ferrite ,but i have 19mm x 25mm neo's

Coils i can wind--any spec's on those,other than 250 turns each? What core material?.Wire size?.--are they hooked in series or parallel ?--guess we can sort that out when it's running,and set to achieve our 50 volt's at the caps.

Was there claims that this device is an OU device?
What was it's purpose?,as all i see is a motor drawing power from the source,and a generator returning power back to the source.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stupify12 on November 12, 2017, 02:13:19 AM
So,is it going to be the Bedini energizer?

I have modified the below schematic to include the cap--would this be correct?

I have all the parts needed
The motor
The duel pole-duel throw relay,rated at 60 amp's.
A 38kg flywheel
4x high current 10 000Uf 63v caps
Magnets ?--any one know what type of magnets John used in his energizer,as he always seem'd to have a soft spot for ferrite ,but i have 19mm x 25mm neo's

Coils i can wind--any spec's on those,other than 250 turns each? What core material?.Wire size?.--are they hooked in series or parallel ?--guess we can sort that out when it's running,and set to achieve our 50 volt's at the caps.

Was there claims that this device is an OU device?
What was it's purpose?,as all i see is a motor drawing power from the source,and a generator returning power back to the source.


Brad

The proven OU device here is the FLYWHEEL, but nobody seems to check i posted above on this page.  We might need Buck-Boost converter on that HV capacitor being charge to convert it to pure amperage(12v or 24v) that can drive the motor when switch over. Chas Campbell was one of the example, so many have already uploaded the so called FLYWHEEL Free Energy Generator on the Youtube.

Will
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 02:25:08 AM
OK,found the claim--oh,and the books you need to buy to make it work lol  ::)

Thirty years ago at the Tesla Symposium in Colorado Springs, Jim Watson demonstrated a very large scale machine based on John Bedini’s 1984 Free Energy Generator.

At the conference, the machine was running and producing a lot of mechanical work, but what was amazing is that it kept itself charged up the whole time!

It had a large three foot diameter flywheel that weighed about 800 pounds attached to an aircraft starter motor, which was battery-powered. The generator section charged a bunch of coils like a magneto, which sent this back to the battery running the machine.

Below is a diagram that John Bedini showed for his smaller prototype.


Between this image and some other diagrams – Jim Watson who had no electrical engineering background make it work.

Over the years, many people have tried and failed at replicating these claims. Very soon, we are releasing Bedini SG – The Complete Advanced Handbook. Included in this highly anticipated release are details about the Watson Machine that nobody has figured out in the last 30 years. And, the keys to making it work have been sitting right there in plain site!

There are already two books: Bedini SG – The Complete Beginner’s Handbook and Bedini SG – The Complete Intermediate Handbook. These are an absolute requirement to have in order to understand the basic working principles of self-regenerative energizers. And with the Advanced book coming, it will take everyone’s experiments and results to the next level!


So,all those that bought the !The Complete Advanced Handbook! ,should now have working machine's,where the battery remains charged,while the motor continue's to do mechanical work.

Source

https://emediapress.com/2014/10/21/watson-machine/
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 02:41:43 AM
Ok,so after much hunting,i found a link to a thread at EF,that is about the energizer.

From Peter Lindermann him self,which confirms some of my earlier thoughts.

Quote:
Hi Guys,

Thought I'd drop in and share a few things.

There is another interesting feature of the Watson Machine that is usually overlooked, and that is the motor. The salvaged aircraft starter/generator unit was essentially a system that had a wound field and a wound rotor, with a brush commutator. It was probably SERIES WOUND. This means that when the motor is offered electric current from the battery, it will produce bursts of TORQUE. It also means that when the motor is disconnected from the battery, it will produce NO back EMF and NO DRAG except for the brush friction.

If you attempt to use a DC motor with a permanent magnet field in this machine, it won't work, because these motors ALWAYS produce reverse currents into the shorted turns of the rotor windings, and therefore, always produce DRAG when not connected to a power supply! You can see this behavior quite easily when you try to spin the shaft. A permanent magnet field DC motor will NOT free wheel when disconnected from power. They stop very quickly due to their internal short circuit on the rotor!

For those of you who have seen my DVD Electric Motor Secrets, you may also understand that if this motor/flywheel system is run at a speed that is significantly near the top speed of the motor for its excitation voltage, the current draw will be greatly reduced, because the internal back EMF of the motor will be approaching maximum. There are other subtleties to this aspect of the machine that only become apparent after significant experimentation with motors.

With the permanent magnet induced, inductive collapse "energizer" driving into a capacitor, the back EMF drag of the generator section drops to a very low value because the system is encouraged to produce VOLTAGE instead of current. Current production is the ONLY aspect of electricity that causes DRAG according to Lenz Law, not voltage.

This is the first machine that Bedini developed for the charging of a battery from a capacitor dump. Its a brilliant little arrangement because the capacitor never drops below the battery voltage, so when it is disconnected from the battery, 100% of the energy it receives from the "energizer" is added to the capacitor at a voltage ABOVE the battery voltage. So, the system can produce 100% of its energy at reduced back EMF and make ALL of it available to the battery.

With the flywheel storing the torque, produced by the motor pulses and consumed by the "current production" of the energizer, the "window" for understanding HOW the machine can go OU is revealed. This machine cannot work without a proportional flywheel and a good, low friction bearing system.

The secret of the machine is in "managing" the back EMF production in both the motor and the generator. The motor MUST be able to operate in a pure "free wheel mode" in-between the torque pulses it contributes. The energizer MUST charge into a capacitor so its output is biased toward VOLTAGE production and away from current. This reduces the back EMF drag (reverse motoring effect) it produces.

When all of the components are proportional (tuned) and the system gets up to operational speed, the losses go to minimum and the COP goes above 1 and the battery starts charging.

So,i have highlighted key points.

1-we need a series or parallel wound DC motor--not a PM DC motor--Peter says-->probably SERIES WOUND.
As i stated to Grum,and confirmed by PL-->understand that if this motor/flywheel system is run at a speed that is significantly near the top speed of the motor for its excitation voltage, the current draw will be greatly reduced, because the internal back EMF of the motor will be approaching maximum

No problem,i have many starter motors  ;)

2-,we need high voltage output from the energizer--Erfinder seems to be on track there.

3-we do need a cap/cap bank-as i added into the schematic.

Bit i dont see or understand in regards to the provided schematic--->Quote: With the permanent magnet induced, inductive collapse "energizer"

Where is this inductive collapse mechanism in the schematic ?,as all i see is the gen coils going straight to a FWBR  ???

And yes--we have the claim by PL
Quote: the losses go to minimum and the COP goes above 1


Source

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3927-watson-machine.html#post48882


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2017, 03:09:02 AM
The proven OU device here is the FLYWHEEL, but nobody seems to check i posted above on this page.  We might need Buck-Boost converter on that HV capacitor being charge to convert it to pure amperage(12v or 24v) that can drive the motor when switch over. Chas Campbell was one of the example, so many have already uploaded the so called FLYWHEEL Free Energy Generator on the Youtube.

Will

No, FLYWHEELs are energy _storage_ devices. You get out what you put in, minus losses. Do you think a Bank is a money source? No... you get out what you put in, or you have to pay back more than you take out in loans.

None of the alleged flywheel Free Energy Generator devices actually work to give more out than in.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 12, 2017, 03:16:30 AM
Brad -- you and I both know that Lindeman's claims are just that: claims, full of hot air, never demonstrated to be truly OU by anyone who has ever tried them and certainly never self-looped or daisy-chained. I don't think he'd recognize a 24 volt aircraft starter motor if he woke up next to one some morning.

But since this topic is here and talking about _unproven_ things and things which have already been proven false, I've decided to share my EEEE apparatus design here.

Most of this system has already been proven to work.  8)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: profitis on November 12, 2017, 03:30:21 AM
"And with the Advanced book coming, it
will take everyone’s experiments and results to the
next level!"

Peel that onion DOWN bro
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 03:37:44 AM
 author=TinselKoala link=topic=17491.msg512968#msg512968 date=1510452990]


But since this topic is here and talking about _unproven_ things and things which have already been proven false, I've decided to share my EEEE apparatus design here.

Most of this system has already been proven to work.  8)
[/quote]

Ah yes

That is your self tuning thingy--isnt it?

 
Quote
you and I both know that Lindeman's claims are just that: claims, full of hot air, never demonstrated to be truly OU by anyone who has ever tried them and certainly never self-looped or daisy-chained.

Yes--to date,none of the Bedini camp's claims have been verified

Quote
I don't think he'd recognize a 24 volt aircraft starter motor if he woke up next to one some morning.

I would have to agree,after watching most of his video's.

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 03:48:14 AM
Dose any one have any objections to me using the below as the generator?,as it would be far more efficient than any hand wound bedini number.

At 2000RPM,it develops 620VPP from each phase.
In this case,we would just pull off one phase.
Probably will split the phase we are using in half,and parallel connect each half,so as to reduce the voltage to 1/2,as i dont think we need 600+ volts.
 These motors make great high frequency, very low cogging generators.

Also pictured is the 400 amp duel pole,double throw relay i will be using to switch from motor to cap discharge.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 12, 2017, 04:57:49 AM
The caps would only drop down to battery voltage at best,so they will never be fully discharged.

Right, that is what I was saying. :) The only way the caps could be discharged lower than
the battery voltage is if something like a boost converter circuit was used to discharge them.
At any rate, the charge to the battery would most likely be something less than 56 Watts based
on what was described, was my point. This would seem to indicate the total power draw from
the batteries would have to kept lower than 56 Watts.

I think you mentioned that the generator coils are supposedly designed to produce high voltage rather than high current?
The problem is that large capacitors need high current to charge up quickly, so you would have a catch 22.
Where is the high current coming from to charge the large capacitors fast if high current is what you are trying to avoid?
('High' and 'low' are relative terms however...)


Anyway, the problem in looking for an OU device to replicate is that most people who have claimed to
have built one and who have demonstrated a supposed self maintaining (self running) setup do not typically release
full critical circuit build details.  Even in cases where half decent schematics are available, often some critical build details are still missing. ;D
If that wasn't the case, other people would have likely replicated the devices already.

There is also the problem of various people making videos on Youtube or whatever claiming to have replicated
an OU device, but typically it turns out that they just don't know how to make proper measurements or they neglect to do so.
To save wasting lots of time, in my opinion it is very reasonable to want to focus on OU device claims which have been
demonstrated to be a 'self runner'. If you added up all the time people have wasted in these forums looking at OU device
claims where it just turns out that the person making the claim had no idea what they were talking about, it is an awful lot
of wasted time and effort. ;) Focusing on OU device claims that have at least been shown to be able to be self maintaining
in some way starts to be become an essential requirement after a while. :D Even that doesn't rule out potential hoaxes or fraud however.

The reality seems to be there are few OU device claims which look potentially promising where full essential build details are known. Either
essential build details are lacking, or the claims are otherwise lacking or suspect in various ways. This is why I personally have been focusing in the
last few years on testing potential concepts rather than trying to replicate specific device claims. It is not necessarily any more
productive, but at least I am in full control of the test setup details. :)




Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 12, 2017, 07:44:52 AM
To try to clarify the point I was trying to make in my comment above,
what I was getting at is that if there is a claimed OU device which seems to possibly hold
some potential for being a real OU device, then if all the important build details are not known
(which is typically the case) then if you have an idea of what the key concepts are
supposed to be that are supposed to make the device OU, then another approach is to
try to think up some simple test setups which can put those specific concepts to the tests.

For example, if I remember correctly I think Grummage did some tests in the past with a
big flywheel where he was trying to test if a large flywheel may pull in extra energy from the
'ambient' somehow. So people could think how to do a basic test setup which would show
clearly if this is the case or not.

The other concept of having generator output coils presumably with large winding turn counts
to produce higher voltage rather than higher current (if I understood correctly) could also potentially
be put to the test in a simple and basic test configuration.

By separating out and putting concepts to the test in simple and easy to understand basic test setups
where ever possible, you may have a better chance of seeing if there really is anything interesting
going on there or not. Trying to replicate someone else's device in which you typically are lacking
important details may often not be too practical. That's my own approach these days anyway. :)


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 08:00:11 AM
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512972#msg512972 date=1510459069]


 
Quote
At any rate, the charge to the battery would most likely be something less than 56 Watts based
on what was described, was my point.This would seem to indicate the total power draw from
the batteries would have to kept lower than 56 Watts.

Well,that is doable.
At 12 volt's,we would be allowed a current of 4.6 amp's.
The 12 volt series wound motor i am going to use surprisingly only draws 2.8 amps free wheeling =33.6 watts.
This leaves us with 20 watts to overcome any other friction added to the system,which in this case is 2 more bearing's,and the generators drag.

We must also remember that the motor is on only 50% of the time,and so would only consume 1/2 of that 33.6 watt's-->if the speed can be maintained at the 50% duty cycle.

Quote
I think you mentioned that the generator coils are supposedly designed to produce high voltage rather than high current?
The problem is that large capacitors need high current to charge up quickly, so you would have a catch 22.

No necessarily.

Large caps can also be seen as small Uf value,but a high voltage rating.

If we take a !say! 100Uf 1000v cap,it can be charged quite quick with minimal current,to say 300 volt's. In this setup,we have 1/2 a cycle to charge the cap,and so low current could be used,as long as the potential is high. But when the cap is discharged into the battery,we get a large rush of current flowing from the cap,to the battery,in a very short period of time.

We could look at this like driving a nail into hardwood with a hammer.
If we hold the hammer by the head,and push the hammer down on the nail,we will not drive that nail into the wood.
But,if we hold the hammer by the handle,and hit the nail with a sharp blow,we will drive that nail into the wood. Maybe something like this happens within the battery?--maybe sharp blows of current get the job done more efficiently ?.

So,here we have a low current over a long time charging the cap,and a high current over a short time discharging from the cap.

Quote
To save wasting lots of time, in my opinion it is very reasonable to want to focus on OU device claims which have been
demonstrated to be a 'self runner'.

Both Lindermann and Bedini have claimed,and apparently shown self running devices.
Both have claimed that this one is a self runner.

Quote
Anyway, the problem in looking for an OU device to replicate is that most people who have claimed to
have built one and who have demonstrated a supposed self maintaining (self running) setup do not typically release
full critical circuit build details.  Even in cases where half decent schematics are available, often some critical build details are still missing. ;D
If that wasn't the case, other people would have likely replicated the devices already.

Well,the Wright brothers never had the full detailed plans to build a plane either.They learned by building and trying it out,then made the changes needed.
In fact,every invention was trial and error--not from detailed plan's.
At least here we have a starting point,and claims to go with it.

Quote
There is also the problem of various people making videos on Youtube or whatever claiming to have replicated
an OU device, but typically it turns out that they just don't know how to make proper measurements or they neglect to do so.

Well,with this machine,there would be no such measurement error,as it is an electromechanical looped device.

If the battery drains down over a period of time--then it's shit. ::)
If the battery voltage increases over time--then it's good. :D

Quote
If you added up all the time people have wasted in these forums looking at OU device
claims where it just turns out that the person making the claim had no idea what they were talking about, it is an awful lot


I have a few tricks up my sleeve that i want to try on this one anyway   ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 08:54:57 AM
So,after a search through my large crate full of capacitors,i found these 4

I think they'll do the trick for a start.

So,now have all the bit's needed,including the relay switching circuit from the SMD experiments.

Time to build i think  ;)


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 12, 2017, 09:41:42 AM

No necessarily.
Large caps can also be seen as small Uf value,but a high voltage rating.

If we take a !say! 100Uf 1000v cap,it can be charged quite quick with minimal current,to say 300 volt's. In this setup,we have 1/2 a cycle to charge the cap,and so low current could be used,as long as the potential is high. But when the cap is discharged into the battery,we get a large rush of current flowing from the cap,to the battery,in a very short period of time.
We could look at this like driving a nail into hardwood with a hammer.
If we hold the hammer by the head,and push the hammer down on the nail,we will not drive that nail into the wood.
But,if we hold the hammer by the handle,and hit the nail with a sharp blow,we will drive that nail into the wood. Maybe something like this happens within the battery?--maybe sharp blows of current get the job done more efficiently ?.

So,here we have a low current over a long time charging the cap,and a high current over a short time discharging from the cap.

...

Both Lindermann and Bedini have claimed,and apparently shown self running devices.
Both have claimed that this one is a self runner.



Hi Tinman. I think it was mentioned previously that three 15000 uF caps were used.
If you make the assumption that the three caps were in parallel (I don't know if that was the case however)
then that is a total capacitance of 45000 uF. Smaller capacitance caps charge up more quickly, but they
can't store as much energy as caps with larger capacitance. The calculation for a battery charge of max 56 Watts
was based on a capacitance of 45000 uF charged to 50v in one second. A smaller amount of capacitance will store
less energy however.

I can't comment on whether Bedini or Lindemann have ever convincingly shown a self runner
or not as I haven't seen all their videos, but I have seen a video on Bedini's 'Tesla Switch' setup in
which Bedini was talking about 'negative energy', but I saw nothing in his setup that would indicate
some sort of unusual form of energy was involved. Having experimented with that setup myself,
what it does is slosh charge back and forth between batteries, which may well increase efficiency,
but in my testing I saw no indications of OU or 'negative energy' being involved. Stuff like that tends
to make me take Bedini's claims with a grain of salt. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 10:56:25 AM
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512979#msg512979 date=1510476102]


Quote
Hi Tinman. I think it was mentioned previously that three 15000 uF caps were used.
If you make the assumption that the three caps were in parallel (I don't know if that was the case however)
then that is a total capacitance of 45000 uF. Smaller capacitance caps charge up more quickly, but they
can't store as much energy as caps with larger capacitance. The calculation for a battery charge of max 56 Watts
was based on a capacitance of 45000 uF charged to 50v in one second. A smaller amount of capacitance will store
less energy however.

Well we have some saying low voltage,and high current.
Then we have PL saying high voltage,and low current,to lessen the drag on the generator.

If we have your 45000uF cap bank charged to 50v,then we have 56 joules of energy stored in the caps.
If we have a 300uF cap bank charged to 600v,then we have 54 joules of energy stored in the caps--not much difference.

But here is the advantage of using the smaller value caps at a higher voltage.

Lets take your 45000uF cap bank that has that 56 joules of stored energy in them.
We dump that energy into the battery,and your caps will drop to 12 volts at best.
You still have 3.24 joules of energy left in your caps that is not delivered to the battery.

Now we look at the 300uF cap bank that has 54 joules of energy stored in them.
We dump that into the battery,and have 12v left across the caps.
300uf cap with 12v across it has only 21.6mJ of stored energy left in it.

So which cap bank delivered the most amount of energy to the battery?.

Quote
I can't comment on whether Bedini or Lindemann have ever convincingly shown a self runner
or not as I haven't seen all their videos, but I have seen a video on Bedini's 'Tesla Switch' setup in
which Bedini was talking about 'negative energy', but I saw nothing in his setup that would indicate
some sort of unusual form of energy was involved. Having experimented with that setup myself,
what it does is slosh charge back and forth between batteries, which may well increase efficiency,
but in my testing I saw no indications of OU or 'negative energy' being involved. Stuff like that tends
to make me take Bedini's claims with a grain of salt. :)

There is only one way to find out,and that is-go into the project with an open mind,and see the results for your self.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 11:18:45 AM
 author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg512980#msg512980 date=1510476966]

 

Quote
yes...  I have an objection....  the device depicted in the diagram is labeled as an "energizer" not a generator.....  the information that the community was provided by Peter Lindeman "after the fact" should not be taken into consideration, why?  He never explained what it was, instead while intersted parties were distracted, he substituted the energizer for a conventional generator, alternator, dynamo, what have you....

OK,so the schematic below is wrong--!OR! missing bits?.

Quote
If you insist on using this charging method, know that you will be at the mercy of Lenz, each time your cap is discharged below 620v, or whatever the maximum voltage is of your generator.  Some time ago I had an offline discussion with Matt Watts,  I shared with him how I interpret this situation and how to get around this limitation...

Are you willing to help out with this project in a straight forward manner ?,as in sharing how you circumvented the lenz drag,or perhaps completing the schematic as John had it.

Quote
Cogging is compensated for by the flywheel...so we don't have to care about that....The "energizer" in the example also uses an offset there are an even number of magnets and an odd number of coils....  one could setup an offset between an even number of coils and magnets, however, this is a more involved process...   Point is...cogging isn't an issue..

Yes,no problem with cogging with a good sized flywheel.
However,if there were an even number of magnets,and an odd number of coil,would mean that each the coils were not hooked in series or parallel,as each of there phases would be different.

Quote
The voltage at the output, through what mechanism it's produced, what level it must reach, these are issues of paramount importance.  The voltage must be HIGH, allowing for one to charge a relatively small capacity, between 10 and 200uf in a single impulse.  The mistake being made is to be found in how we assume the system accumulates energy over several cycles....it doesn't!

Well,with parts of the schematic/circuit missing from what we have,it's going to have to be by trial and error.

Quote
Look.....The fact that the community is even entertaining the idea of replicating this device shows that those chomping at the bit, ready to go weren't paying attention.  Bedini informed the community that the SG is the Watson machine!

Actually,Bedini said the watson machine was a copy of his machine.

Quote
The machine cannot run itself, not how its setup....  you might have a chance though, if you can convert the generator into a motor during the time when the prime mover is disengaged.....

Well i suppose that i could build a 3 phase drive circuit,as it was a motor to start with.

Im guessing that it should be a pulsed motor though,and we are then to look at the inductive kickback as our high voltage source.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 12, 2017, 11:34:03 AM

Well we have some saying low voltage,and high current.
Then we have PL saying high voltage,and low current,to lessen the drag on the generator.

If we have your 45000uF cap bank charged to 50v,then we have 56 joules of energy stored in the caps.
If we have a 300uF cap bank charged to 600v,then we have 54 joules of energy stored in the caps--not much difference.

But here is the advantage of using the smaller value caps at a higher voltage.

Lets take your 45000uF cap bank that has that 56 joules of stored energy in them.
We dump that energy into the battery,and your caps will drop to 12 volts at best.
You still have 3.24 joules of energy left in your caps that is not delivered to the battery.

Now we look at the 300uF cap bank that has 54 joules of energy stored in them.
We dump that into the battery,and have 12v left across the caps.
300uf cap with 12v across it has only 21.6mJ of stored energy left in it.

So which cap bank delivered the most amount of energy to the battery?.

Hi Tinman. If you charge a smaller capacitance cap to a much higher voltage, it still
takes current over time to charge that cap up. The higher you charge a capacitor,
the longer it is going to take to charge up unless something unusual is going on.
It wouldn't hurt to experiment with different total capacitance bank values though to see
what the impact is on performance.

Batteries are weird because they are electro-chemical in nature and I think
in some cases their weird behavior can sometimes fool experimenters. However
if you leave a setup running steady for say 48 hours or so while drawing say 35 Watts or so
from the battery, and the loaded battery terminal voltage hasn't dropped at all, then you
may really have something. It is when people do a test run for less than 24 hours and then
also measure the unloaded battery terminal voltage and that sort of thing that can
lead people to draw wrong conclusions. :)

I'm not sure what you meant in your other comment in regards to having an open mind.
I have an open mind or I wouldn't be experimenting with this kind of stuff myself.
I just mentioned some ideas on how to possibly reduce wheel spinning. :)
Anyone is free to experiment however they like... If some people want to try to replicate
setups where they don't have all the details , that is up to them. ;)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 11:50:21 AM
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg512984#msg512984 date=1510482843]
 




Quote
Hi Tinman. If you charge a smaller capacitance cap to a much higher voltage, it still
takes current over time to charge that cap up. The higher you charge a capacitor,
the longer it is going to take to charge up unless something unusual is going on.
It wouldn't hurt to experiment with different total capacitance bank values though to see
what the impact is on performance.


Yes,i understand that,but a smaller value at a higher voltage would see more of the stored energy delivered to the battery.

I have three phases on the gen i am using,and so i can split each phase into pieces,and give us 3 different working voltage's,and so,we can try various size cap banks.

Quote
Batteries are weird because they are electro-chemical in nature and I think
in some cases their weird behavior can sometimes fool experimenters. However
if you leave a setup running steady for say 48 hours or so while drawing say 35 Watts or so
from the battery, and the loaded battery terminal voltage hasn't dropped at all, then you
may really have something. It is when people do a test run for less than 24 hours and then
also measure the unloaded battery terminal voltage and that sort of thing that can
lead people to draw wrong conclusions. :)

Oh yes
I am well aware of batteries and there tricks.

Quote
I'm not sure what you meant in your other comment in regards to having an open mind.
I have an open mind or I wouldn't be experimenting with this kind of stuff myself.
I just mentioned some ideas on how to possibly reduce wheel spinning. :)
Anyone is free to experiment however they like... IF some people want to try to replicate
setups where they don't have all the details , that is up to them. ;)

I was referring to myself.
Years ago,i was all for the free energy stuff-back in the days of IAEC.

Over the years,things never turned out like the claims being made.
And over the years,you start to learn what is rubbish,and what is true.

So i guess you could see that now as me having a closed mind,and maybe it's time i stepped into things again with an open mind  :)

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 12:10:44 PM

your common sense, and years of experience should have you answering yes to all of those questions...




I assist how I choose to assist....you don't get to dictate how I share and communicate my perspective.  All the schematics one need are already in the public domain....the problem is, authorities and those who label themselves authorities see things at face value, what you see is not always what you get....  for the record, I know as much as the next guy about what John had....I came to my own conclusions after "considering" what he said, and what he didn't say. 


There you go again, jumping to conclusions.....  things are not as they seem...



See this is when it helps to be a fanboy rather than a debunker....  The prior, knows the goal, and works towards it, using what was given to discover the missing pieces....  shooting in the dark (trial and error) are the tools of the ill prepared, the lazy, the debunker...



The funny thing about your statement here is you think you are informing me of something....you aren't....as the story goes, watson copied bedini, eventually bedini perfected the design, miniaturized it, passing it off as a novelty.....got the public intersted in it...protecting the idea, preserving the concept.... this went on for 20+ years....  finally, he scaled it back up and presented the scaled up version in 2010...  a fundamental change was introduced, namely, the SG was married to the Kromrey, with the SG operating as both an energizer and prime mover, while the kromrey operated as a generator and motor....  wrap your noggin around that one.......



How about brainstorming what the damn thing was supposed to be before you begin anything, and drag folk along in your wake for the ride of their lives which, if it continues the way it's going, will lead to another bashing of the inventors work, not because he failed, more like the replicator failed to appreciate the inventor's vision...



The prime mover, the flywheel and the energizer must become one.....  comprehend the concept, and then mirror it, nesting one system within the other, forming something likened to a fractal.... just like he did....

Ok Erfinder--this is not the thread for you.

You are just going to be the same old Erfinder,where we have pages of nothingness from you.

This is a thread where people will post links to vital information for each other--not just say that the information is all over the net--not good enough.

So no,this will not be a thread full of your nothingness and riddles.

So please,refrain from posting here.

I have asked nicely.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 12, 2017, 12:53:30 PM
Dear Erfinder.

A few posts back you mentioned an “ odds even “ relationship between the energiser rotor and stator.

Most pictures on the web seem to depict an “ even “ relationship.

Was this something you developed or found advantageous from your early experiments?

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:24:26 PM

With regards to the SG, everything  is even for the most part....  we never see Bedini actually do an odd even setup, we assume he had one when we research the Watson machine....assuming the attached image is a photo of the Watson device..   Look carefully at the magnets and see that they do not align with the coils.  As I stated before, you can engineer an offset within an even system, however, it's more complicated.... 


Other researchers, old men when Bedini was young, were exploring and or investigating odd versus even.  Check muller and adams for more information. 


Offset in an even system yields superior results to odd versus even systems, that has been my experience.


I responded out of respect,  you are aware that Tinman does not want me posting here....so....I hope I answered your question....  I will be respecting his wish from here on out.

If it is going to be responses like the above Erfinder,then please feel free to do so.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stupify12 on November 12, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
Tinman,

Go for it! learn from trial and error while working with your device.
I would go for the Hi amp charging the battery. Buck-boost converter for conventional approach.
I think its better to use the dry cell battery like Tesla batteries.
We look forward for the big flywheel device you are making, don't listen to others,see for yourself what results you get from your build.

Will
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 01:54:37 PM
Ok,after some more digging,i have the words straight from the horses mouth--John him self.


Quote:
The reason is the DC motor must be off when the dis-charge occurs.
http://www.johnbedini.net/john34/bedmot2.jpg

After looking at what Tom Bearden did in the book Electromagnetics part 4, This is what I did in 1984 to make the first model 2. I knew that it must be a switching and impedance problem, I also knew allot about pulse charging systems and what they did to the lead acid storage batteries . I also knew about charging batteries with huge Capacitor Banks. I was good at this because of the Amplifiers we were building at the time.

You run into all kinds of Impedance problems and Phasing, so this was a piece of cake. I also knew about Mass weight and what flywheels did and how they stored energy. I figured that the generator could not be the normal kind because they were saying the word ENERGIZER which really means MAGNETO, but this did not answer the question of where the current came from, the Capacitor was the answer.

The MAGNETO would charge this very fast and to High Voltages some times 10 times the battery voltage. When the machine first ran it would explode the batteries if they were bad, so I put the switch S1 to control it. When the battery would get low I would switch S1 to charge the battery back up.

This was 18 years ago with what we have today this machine can be made real easy if you tinker with it and get it set right. The ENERGIZER How did I come up with this one you see in the picture. My uncle was a old time mechanic who was a real tinker, he use to tell me of the old lighting circuits just after the horse and carriage days and things that people would never believe, this is where My MAGNETO comes from. I told Jim Watson how to do this, I never thought that he would build a Machine that big but He did. and that's the story of this machine. Jim got paid off I got pushed agents the wall and told to by gasoline the rest of My life but once you see something like this you never give up.

John go's on to say--as he has many time's,that when you hit the battery with continual high current pulses,a reaction takes place within the battery that you do not get with a steady DC current.

So,the cap dump system is used,as the generator it self could not deliver such high current pulses at an instant. The caps are charged by the magneto over time,and then all that stored energy hits the battery hard.

So we now know that the !energizer! is just a magneto,and the schematic he supplied in the link is of his V2-->but he seems to have left out the FWBR.
I would also move S1 to a position before the cap,so as you do not get an over voltage in the cap when S1 is open.

What is a magneto

Quote: a small electric generator containing a permanent magnet and used to provide high-voltage pulses.

Well,this is exactly what we will have with my setup.
The high voltage pulses will come from the cap,that is charged by the magneto.

High voltage pulses can be obtained from a magneto in many different ways--spring loaded rotors that flip from one spot to another fast,while the shaft remains at a constant speed--EG,automotive magneto's,or by coil shorting,such as the small magneto i have on my bench that was used to make the telephone ring back in the 30's.
Johns version stores the charge from the magneto into a capacitor,and then a switching mechanism dumps that high voltage charge into a battery.

The only difference between what my setup will be,and the schematic John supplied above,is we will be using an electronic switching circuit,instead of the commutated switching John used in his V2 machine.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 12, 2017, 02:31:32 PM
@all

Biggest mistake of the Bedini thingy is the diameter of the Energizer/Generator coil wheel seems slightly greater then the flywheel so any drag on those coils will be transferred to the shaft tenfold. Leverage is the most neglected factor in our rotating machines and cannot be compensated by fancy switching. So if the base design is faulty, the total design will not work.

So.... instead of let's say a 24 inch generator wheel, you used 3 or 4 smaller diameter generator wheels on that same shaft? Now the leverage of the flywheel will always be greater then the breaking leverage of the drag causing generator coils.

But guys will not think about their designs in advance. They will just jump in blindly thinking that "REPLICATING" someone  elses mistakes will produce a different result.

wattsup

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 02:43:19 PM


vindication.....  this was pointed out on page 3.....useless babble my ass.... 


unfortunately you are still missing the point....  the layout is wrong.....  the magneto must become a motor.....




Quote
the capacitor discharge path which includes the charge battery, is through through the magneto, specifically through the very same inductor which charged the cap.

No where dose John mention that the magneto is put into a motoring phase,nor that the discharge from the cap ,go's through the magneto coils.

Johns own diagram also dose not show this-see below.

Quote
  I will demonstrate this, however, I will not provide any diagrams I just want it to be known that it can be done!  If you want to do it, figure it out like I had to...

Yes,i know how to do that already.
But neither John or the diagram calls for that.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 04:10:34 PM

no brad its not mentioned in the diagram, dig like you did before and find that I am right!




you're too close minded for your own damn good...

Quote
if you knew his work, you would have identified it just like I did........ you would know that he superseded his old shit.....

But it is his old !shit! that i wish to replicate,not some super seeded model.
I wish to build the one depicted in Johns schematic.

Quote
.I offered to make a demonstration but after this post see that there is no point.....

If you wish to show me,then that would be appreciated.
If you dont wish to show me,then that would be understandable.

If what you have is not related to the machine i wish to build(the one depicted in the schematic i posted),then there is not much point wasting your time doing so.

If it is related to the V2,then by all means--im all ears and eyes.

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 12, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
@all

Biggest mistake of the Bedini thingy is the diameter of the Energizer/Generator coil wheel seems slightly greater then the flywheel so any drag on those coils will be transferred to the shaft tenfold. Leverage is the most neglected factor in our rotating machines and cannot be compensated by fancy switching. So if the base design is faulty, the total design will not work.

 Now the leverage of the flywheel will always be greater then the breaking leverage of the drag causing generator coils.

But guys will not think about their designs in advance. They will just jump in blindly thinking that "REPLICATING" someone  elses mistakes will produce a different result.

wattsup

Quote
So.... instead of let's say a 24 inch generator wheel, you used 3 or 4 smaller diameter generator wheels on that same shaft?

Well thats not very good math Wattsup.

So now the generator wheels are 1/4 the size,but we have 4 times as many.
This means--no loss/no gain.

You just made 3 left turns,and ended back where you started from :D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 12, 2017, 05:09:02 PM
Well thats not very good math Wattsup.

So now the generator wheels are 1/4 the size,but we have 4 times as many.
This means--no loss/no gain.

You just made 3 left turns,and ended back where you started from :D

@tinman

Wrong. This means you can now load those generator coils and the true full leverage of the flywheel can be used to cut through the drag generated. No drag no output. It's just a question of where do you want to fight the drag, near the shaft or on the outer edges. The full rotational energy is exerted on the central shaft, not on the outer edges.

The other misnomer in his design. Generator coils in series will produce high voltage. But to keep the battery charged, anything above 14vdc and 20% of the battery amps rating will be wasted because the battery simply cannot use it. High voltage low amps on the battery will just eventually render the battery a reactive source that will have no or little amperage available and eventually die.

The first thing you need to do on such a project is to produce a battery baseline otherwise you are just winging it. Use a standard trickle charger and charge the battery until it shows charged at xx volts. Then run any 12 volt device with the battery and see how long it takes for it to fall to 11 vdc. Never let the battery go below 10.5 vdc. Then run your bedini thingy until the battery reaches the same charged voltage level which will be very quick with those high volts. Then do the same DC load test and see how long it now takes for the battery to fall to 11vdc. You will see that the later will take minutes. The bedini farce is thinking reactive battery charge has value, but it does not.

Once you do that, you will quickly realize that those generators coils are better off stay all in parallel or some in series to get the 12-14vdc charge voltage then those sets paralleled to increase the amperage charge. That will balance out the system to be totally complimentary to battery.

wattsup

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 12, 2017, 05:24:40 PM

I responded out of respect,  you are aware that Tinman does not want me posting here....so....I hope I answered your question....  I will be respecting his wish from here on out.

Thank you for your curtesy, and the mention of the magnetic offset.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Redward on November 12, 2017, 05:54:40 PM
Looks that acceleration under load is coming back. Thane Heins has replicated one of romerouk old generators.

romerouk version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7e6Lu_YSCo&t=222s

Thane Heins Oct 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vQ7t3A9oc
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 12, 2017, 06:55:47 PM
This is the Youtube video made by the guy who said he got his build based on the Watson motor
to self run:

Bedini Machine aka Watson Machine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdiK8sb81XU


From what I understood, he said that once the motor was up to speed, he switched out the
start battery and he said the device was powering itself and charging the battery at the same time.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 04:30:10 AM
This is the Youtube video made by the guy who said he got his build based on the Watson motor
to self run:

Bedini Machine aka Watson Machine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdiK8sb81XU


From what I understood, he said that once the motor was up to speed, he switched out the
start battery and he said the device was powering itself and charging the battery at the same time.

So i wonder what happened,as that was back in 2012.

I also think we can get the machine to run a little smoother than that one.

I see a lot of voltage measurements,but no current or total P/in P/out measurements.

There is no follow up video's after this one on his channel,so i suspect that it did not end up working as he thought it was.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 05:45:46 AM
Ok,first video on the build is up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXanuYHVrcE


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 06:04:38 AM
Dose any one know what part that is in the schematic below?.



Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: penno64 on November 13, 2017, 07:14:18 AM
Ampmeter

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 01:13:49 PM
Ok,this is the first spin up,so as we can check voltage and frequency.

The whistling Gypsy  :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDlOLtvISo

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 01:35:39 PM

 

 

Quote
If you change the magneto from the style depicted, this no longer qualifies as a replication....

As i state in my next video(just posted),if you think there is an operational difference between the one i am using,and the one John was using,then please provide details of the difference.

Quote
and for the record....the magneto in johns diagram doubles as a motor... now I know what you're thinking, assuming you are considering what I'm saying, "the induced is higher than the applied"....  I entertained that very same thought and through careful observation was brought to the profound conclusion that it doesn't matter....

I have given this some thought,and can think of a couple of different ways to achieve a motoring action from the magneto.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 01:40:26 PM

It's clear he wasn't really interested in proper measurement, if you watch any of the old videos from back when this schematic was drawn, he really didn't know how to make proper measurement....neither here nor there... with that said we can rule out any sort of meter... 


What we know is that he's dumping caps into batteries, we are provided with suggestions regarding their capacity and voltage prior to being dumped..... all that to say this....maybe, just maybe, if rumors regarding batteries exploding when hit with high voltage cap dumps are true, maybe that circle with the arrow in it is a variable resistor.  Throw away some of that energy before it gets to the battery...... yeah...that's what I would have done if I were in his position back in 84......

John states in that quote i posted a few replies back,that the switch was there so as he could turn off the battery charging cycle when the battery voltage got to high.

It would be nice to have a complete schematic,if you think the one he supplied was incomplete--missing the bits that turn the magneto into a motor at some point of each cycle.

It's hard to make an exact replication,when people keep saying thats not the whole circuit,but they too cannot provide the whole circuit--nor can it be located anywhere on the net.

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 13, 2017, 02:45:47 PM
incredible....  you do what you want and get to call it a replication....


Unless you or anyone else can !show! or !prove! that my magneto works any different than the one John show's,then it is a replication.
Both are PM magnetos.
Both have coils that the magnet pass.
Both output an AC current.
Both are series connected.

The only difference is,mine produces a higher frequency.

So many times we here--oh,you need a special this,and a special that.
And so many times,those that make this claim,can provide no details what so ever as to what is so special about the bits required,or why they have to be that exact design.

Here,with you,we have that very same situation.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 13, 2017, 04:53:50 PM
Unless you or anyone else can !show! or !prove! that my magneto works any different than the one John show's,then it is a replication.
Both are PM magnetos.
Both have coils that the magnet pass.
Both output an AC current.
Both are series connected.

The only difference is,mine produces a higher frequency.

So many times we here--oh,you need a special this,and a special that.
And so many times,those that make this claim,can provide no details what so ever as to what is so special about the bits required,or why they have to be that exact design.

Here,with you,we have that very same situation.


Brad

In the large drawing, doesnt it seem funny that the energizer coils are all in series, all N pole mags and for a portion of the rotation the energizer charges the DC cap?? ???   Where is the rectifier???  ;) It seems to me that the energizer is possibly putting out a chain of DC pulses. Asymmetrical induction of the series coils, and the way the coils are made......   Id say Erfinder is right and that energizer portion needs to be the way it needs to be....

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 13, 2017, 05:39:03 PM
Hi Guys.

Indeed, as I see it there's no need for a rectifier if all poles are the same.

On another point. If Mild Steel bolts were used as core material they would get partially magnetised. ( holding their own magnetic field )   

Can anyone verify that the coils were Bifilar wound, pretty sure I read this somewhere?

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 13, 2017, 10:46:37 PM
Hi Guys.

Indeed, as I see it there's no need for a rectifier if all poles are the same.

On another point. If Mild Steel bolts were used as core material they would get partially magnetised. ( holding their own magnetic field )   

Can anyone verify that the coils were Bifilar wound, pretty sure I read this somewhere?

Cheers Graham.

Well there are a few factors involved that would require testing before the full build. Is the back plate that holds the coils magnetic like the poles. Bifi? Dont know on these, nor how the windings ends would be configured. Phase of the offset magnets as to when the switch is closed to send the cap charge to the battery. It may be a sequence thing if asymmetrical as to have the first coil in the series line at tdc of a rotor magnet, and then the next is at tdc with its magnet and so forth. Asymmetrical setups, the coils can be sequentially induced more than 1 time each per half of the rotation of the whole, havnt looked at it close enough to say yet, but Id bet that each coil series run through for the switch on time could be 3 to 4 passes before the switch opens.  Had a lot of playing with asymmetrical with my MMM magnet motor. 9 switching stators and 10 rotor mags. In 1 revolution of the motor, the stators switched 90 times sequentially.

What the energizer does during the switch open time Im not sure of. This older looking circuit doesnt look at all like the energizer is connected to the motor when not charging the cap.


Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 01:37:46 AM
Hi Guys.



   



Cheers Graham.

Quote
Indeed, as I see it there's no need for a rectifier if all poles are the same.

Regardless if all poles are the same or not,you still get an AC current and voltage output from the coils.

Quote
On another point. If Mild Steel bolts were used as core material they would get partially magnetised. ( holding their own magnetic field )

Yes they do,and this drops the efficiency of the coils output,as it bias's the core to the same field that the magnet is trying to induce into it.
Years of bench testing has shown that you want the coil firing the opposite field to that of the magnet. So,if you have all north facing out of the rotor,you want the coil pulsing a south field,which means that it is in attraction mode--not repulsion mode as stated by JB.
If the coil is pulsing a north field out,you want all magnets on the rotor with there south field out.
The worst possible combination is with the magnets facing north out,and the coil also pulsing a north field out,and visa versa with south fields-->attraction mode is the most efficient.

Quote
Can anyone verify that the coils were Bifilar wound, pretty sure I read this somewhere?

I have just finished reading the PDF,along with many other references to this machine,and no where is there mention of bifi wound coils.

Also,no where in any of the PDF,schematics provided by JB him self,or any other source,dose it state that the energizer has a motoring action,or at any time is it in series with the motor and batteries.

It is clearly stated in all the information gathered so far,that the motor is !!disconnected!! from the battery when the energy from the caps is dumped into the battery.

There is no FWBR in Johns schematic shown,because each coil has it's own FWBR,which is on the coil it self.

Jim Watsons machine had 7 ring magnets,and 8 coils,where as Johns machine had 6 coils,and 6 magnets--with no offset between the magnets and coils.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 01:45:01 AM

Brad.......Brad....  it's a special magneto....  just because you say it's not doesn't mean it isn't!  Here's the best part, his way is "the" way, a lesson was to be learned, you are passing up on an opprotunity....   your years with pulse motors using like poles should have prepared you.....they didn't.....  instead of revisiting what you may have missed, you now and then insist that the inventor was an idiot, and proceed to perfect that which you obviously don't get..... comprehending nothing....  I know this because I made the same mistake!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzJm0ZyPMps
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: david1969sulivan on November 14, 2017, 03:51:13 AM
This guy has a few vids and this one in particular he just made is interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoE6xzYnw0s
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 10:14:46 AM

What amazes me is that you know....  What saddens me is that you don't know you do....  it's like I said before, your years of experience with like pole systems were supposed to prepare you for what we are discussing right now, this video reveals your lack of knowledge, it doesn't help your case.


I had a wonderful exchange with Mags a few days ago, among other things, we discussed the significance of the a principle you demonstrate but don't comprehend (not going to tell you what, but if he watches your video, a few words from me and he will know exactly what I am referring to).  It blows my mind, watching you perform the experiment, and fail to comprehend its significance....


On another note...  the magneto is a motor....  the fact that you cannot see this is a sign that you are winging this whole thing....  The years you spent bashing and correcting John while using concepts he inspired would have been better spent in silent contemplation and reflection on what was being provided....  had you gone that route, you would see more than you do....  I will share proof from the horse's mouth that the magneto is a motor with Mags.....  no point sharing that info with you...


Mags.....where are ya....we need to talk....

Cool

With all this wonderful insight,and your willingness to share with Mag's,you 2 should have a self runner in no time flat

I mean,how many times have we heard the same old thing?
How many claim that those that try,and dont see the results promised,are doing it wrong--they just dont understand,and thats why they fail.

How many times have we !not! seen a self running machine from those that accuse others of not knowing what they are doing?.
How many devices have been presented by those that say they know it all,that actually work as claimed?

I will tell you how many--None,nada,zip.
Not one single self running,self charging device has ever been presented by anyone (including you) ,that can self run ,and self charge the run battery to a higher energy content than what it started with-->NOT ONE.

You may keep playing as much as you like with what !you! think is correct,and i will keep using my equipment to see what is truth right there on my bench.

Yes,you can show Mag's what you !want! him to see--but you will never show the device as a whole,nor will you show anyone how it work as claimed.

No point in showing a wheel being spun at a slow speed,charging a cap to 1000 v in half a turn,while keeping the rest of the setup under covers--we can all do that.

So,i'll stick to what i see before me,and you keep on doing what your doing.

Remember-->those that claim others have it wrong,are the very same people that have nothing to show for them self-->sad.but true.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 11:02:09 AM

What did I say....only the ignorant chase OU.....


you don't hear me saying anything about OU.....you on the other hand...  don't worry your pretty little head about what I am sharing with Mags.....  he will see what you can't, he will know what you don't... you have no idea how refreshing it is to be able to sit through your presentation and know that you have no idea what you're talking about, even better than this is when you can point out the flaws, and share these insights with a like mind is its own reward...

So lets put it to the test--your insight,your knowledge.

Lets say that i now have my machine up and running,with the generator i chose to use.

We get the machine up to running speed,and then we switch over to the circuit below.

What happens next ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 11:15:16 AM



I don't care!

Lol
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 01:00:08 PM
A question for all.

Ok,i have redrawn the schematic,and will explain a little further.

Lets say the generator is a low 70% efficient.

The device is started with the switch in position A

The current is 8 amp's,and the voltage is 24 volt's.
So the power being sent to the motor is 192 watts.
Lets say the motor is 80% efficient,and so the mechanical output from the motor is 153.6 watts.
Our generator is only 70% efficient,and so we would only get 107.5 watts out of our generator,from the 192 watts being consumed by the motor.

The generator is required to produce 8 amp's @ 10 volt's=80 watts
This 80 watts is only 74.7% of the output the generator can deliver for the given P/in

So,the motor is started with the switch in position A,and when up to running speed,the switch is switched to position B

The question is-->what happens when the switch is switched to position B?


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 14, 2017, 02:32:34 PM
That is brilliant Brad!  When I first looked at your schematic I didn't look at it closely.  I just assumed you were connecting the output in parallel with the batteries.  Now that you added the switch I looked closer and realized you were connecting the output in series with the batteries.  I am thinking if you get the energizer rewired so the current is higher and the voltage lower the whole system will speed up and maybe go into a run away condition.  Or possibly use a step-down transformer to get higher current at lower voltage and keep the current down in the energizer itself.  I am eagerly awaiting your results.

Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 14, 2017, 03:04:27 PM
 author=citfta link=topic=17491.msg513063#msg513063 date=1510666354]

Quote
That is brilliant Brad!  When I first looked at your schematic I didn't look at it closely.  I just assumed you were connecting the output in parallel with the batteries.  Now that you added the switch I looked closer and realized you were connecting the output in series with the batteries.
Carroll

Quote
I am thinking if you get the energizer rewired so the current is higher and the voltage lower

Already done  ;)

Quote
Or possibly use a step-down transformer to get higher current at lower voltage

I was thinking about going that way,but the transformer is just another loss.

Quote
the whole system will speed up and maybe go into a run away condition.




Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 04:06:16 PM
What did I say....only the ignorant chase OU.....
you don't hear me saying anything about OU.....

Hi Erfinder. I have been following this thread, and I am kind of at a loss as to what
you are up to here. You act like you have these claimed motor/generator OU devices all
figured out, yet you offer absolutely nothing concrete and useful to help Tinman except taunts and insults.  :o

The title of this thread is 'Confirmation of OU devices and claims'. If you believe all OU claims
are 100% false, you could have said that in one comment and there would be no need for you
to comment any further in this thread. All I see from you so far is childish comments trolling Tinman. 
If you want to share something useful, then share it. If you don't want to share anything useful, then why are
you commenting here?

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 04:52:30 PM
So,the motor is started with the switch in position A, and when up to running speed, the switch is switched to position B
The question is-->what happens when the switch is switched to position B?

Hi Brad. I can't say for sure, but I would guess that it will not help much in any way.
The batteries will continue to run down with no charge being applied to them.

From what I can see, the whole point of this type of arrangement is to send a charge to a
battery within a one second or so window while the battery is fully disconnected from driving the motor.
The reason for this is if you try to send charging pulses to the battery while the battery is still driving the
motor, that momentary charge pulse or pulses (which equates to a small momentary battery voltage increase on the battery)
will just cause the motor to drive a little bit harder while the charge pulse(s) are being applied, and there will be
little to no gain in charge in the battery.  To try to get around this problem, Bedini's approach was to disconnect
the battery from the motor for about one second, use the momentum of the big flywheel to keep the generator
up to speed, and send one or more charging pulses to the battery during this one second window where the
battery is not connected to any load.

I don't know Bedini's stuff really in depth, but the impression I get is that Bedini's OU claims for these type of setups
seems to involve having a special configuration of generator (energizer) and taking advantage of a special type
of pulsing to charge batteries in an unusual way. It seems supposedly some sort of special battery charging
action is supposed to occur which allows the batteries to charge much more efficiently than would normally occur with
more 'normal' battery charging approaches. Possibly just sending huge momentary current pulses to the battery using a large
capacitance capacitor pulse discharge is the 'secret' to getting the battery to charge faster than normal, but
something also has to first get that large capacitance cap bank charged up very fast as well during the one second window
where the cap bank is charging, so the 'energizer' would seem to need to be doing something unusual as well.

Also, Bedini has mentioned that the battery can get damaged from charging with those large current pulses,
so it makes me wonder if these large setups can really work for any sort of an extended run even if you
can get the battery to stay charged for short runs. The question is, does sending really large current pulses to a
battery really give it a true charge, or is it just some sort of misleading 'surface charge' that occurs
which makes it look like the battery is staying charged up for shorter runs, but which will not really keep the
battery charged for long duration runs over 24 hours?

I will be interested to see what your current setup can do as it is, to get a baseline of how it is performing.
If it is not performing well, maybe building a bit smaller scale setup using the most efficient DC motor you can
find and following Bedini's approach to building the energizer as closely as can be determined with whatever details
are available could maybe be tried by someone to see if it has much better performance than your current setup.


All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 04:57:36 PM
How about you define useful, do so without asking for schematics, measurement data, or demo model plans...  what you and many others consider useful ain't useful... 
Where is your useful contribution....  all I see is a individual kissing up to and cheerleading for the guy he believes is disseminating what he considers useful information.. 

This is not a replication, it stopped qualifying as such when Tinman took it upon himself to change the magneto, and mix concepts illustrated on the diagrams he found.  A second battery has been added, and the cap is now series as opposed to parallel like we find it in the source diagram....WTF....  this is what's going for a replication?!?  Individuals like yourself accept this proudly..... when the tests fail to deliver what all hoped it would, after the audience is schooled on proper measurement gathering techniques....  he will use his signature , "Bedini Rubbish" line and all of you agree with him.....   

What am I doing here....if only you had ears to hear.....

 :o Ok, it is clear you have nothing to contribute except pretense and hot air...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 05:39:44 PM
Hi Tinman,

Further regarding the one second charge window:
During the one second window where the battery is disconnected from the motor and it is
being charged, it appears you should actually get multiple charge pulses going to the battery.

You will have the huge current discharge pulse from the cap bank discharge when the relay is
switched on to discharge the cap bank into the battery, but the generator is still connected to the cap bank
and batteries all through this one second charge window, so besides the big current discharge pulse from
the cap bank discharge into the batteries, the generator is still sending continuous charge pulses to
both the cap bank and battery while the relay is engaged for the whole one second charge window.
So you should have a full second of charging pulses going to the cap in parallel with the battery during the
one second charge window. Lindemann estimated about 1,865 charge pulses per second coming from
Watson's large Bedini machine.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 05:47:19 PM
Erfinder
Quote
All Agree
end quote.

a bit Presumptive in a room full of builders .

it "should " be noted, all ideas/opinions are considered [still very much so]...and it should also be noted redundant builds would  be a waste of very limited resources .

respectfully
Chet
ps
a note to Void
your video mentioned earlier
attempts are being made to follow up on the invitation to Carroll [to see that DUT







 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on November 14, 2017, 05:52:13 PM
It is not a self runner, but it could be scaled up.
No big effort or investment needed, just a few hours of time and some parts from junk...

Perhaps somebody want try it :)

With one core you get 50 micro watts, with 10 or 20 core you probably can blink a LED...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 06:21:11 PM
Erfinder
investor contacts

please embellish us with that info ?? please don't hold back !!

you have my written permission to post all you know here about that statement
I am most curious...

a statement  like that cannot go unanswered at an open source forum

and the fact is all I do is build, I just do not like wasting resources here or anywhere else.

Chet Kremens
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 06:35:18 PM
Erfinder
exactly
there is no info to back up your statement about audiences with my investment contacts !

there are none and never have been

what has taken place in the past .[By Dr.Steven Jones Group]

inventors who make claims of 0U have been offered Donations to open source from
Angel donors with no strings or investment attached.

 open sourcing is the only criteria.

no investors
   no patents

Donors
Open source
[Key words]
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 06:39:48 PM
It is not a self runner, but it could be scaled up.
No big effort or investment needed, just a few hours of time and some parts from junk...
Perhaps somebody want try it :)
With one core you get 50 micro watts, with 10 or 20 core you probably can blink a LED...

Hi vasik041. If it is not a self runner, then unless you can explain here in brief and simple terms
what specifically makes you think it is OU, and briefly how you have measured the input power versus
the output power, then it will be hard for people to assess. People may not want to spend time
reading through a long PDF file if they don't even know first what it is you are claiming it does
that is unusual.

I have found that testing at really low power levels will always leave way too much room for the
possibility of measurement error and oversights. If it is not a self runner, then most likely it would
need to be producing a clear and significantly much larger output power than the input power to
generate much interest. Unfortunately really low power setups have just too much potential to show
misleading results unless you can get it self running.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 06:57:17 PM
Erfinder
Quote
I haven't asked you and your investor contacts for an audience,
end quote

whats to read into ??

its a false, purposely misleading  statement .

Others who seek investors for business find this "Donor" idea suspicious.
 
I build things for children with disabilities [not toys]
to help them and their families cope with the hardship of their daily lives.
we all do what we can to help our fellow man.

and yes I have built here and elsewhere over the years ,its hard to put down one set of tools
and pick up another when the need is soo great .

its not all about "investor's" there really are good people out there
that just want to make a difference and "give" to the right cause .

these are the Donor's which Dr.Jones has contacted in the past.

a reminder this is an open source forum.
and I would sooner hack a limb off than get in-between a life saving tech
and the world that needs it 

with a price tag...

EDIT
to comment below

its just the truth

and you provoked this ... and assume way too much.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 07:09:35 PM
Ramset, Tinman:

Is this going to be just another thread overrun by trolling and insults like many other threads, or what? ;)

You always have to draw the line somewhere in this world regarding *all* matters. If someone
is disrupting things, then something needs to be done or it will likely only continue or get worse. ;)
If someone obviously doesn't have a clue about how to communicate in a civil manner, then whether it is
in a work place or a library or a court of law or in a family household or in some sort of discussion forum, you
just have to draw the line somewhere and do something concrete about it when the line is crossed. Otherwise
chaos is the only likely result. ;D

I realize that disruptive behavior and constantly throwing out insults etc., is the mentality level of many people in
this world, but that doesn't mean you have to put up with that sort of ignorant behaviour here. ;D
It doesn't matter at all if that person potentially has something useful to add. If they are constantly disrupting
things and throwing out insults, then obviously something needs to be done. There typically is just no reasoning
with people who are that ignorant/troubled, so in such a case something needs to be done.  Otherwise, there is a a good
chance that many who are interested in some serious exchange of knowledge and ideas here will quickly move on...

I am personally not interested in building motor/generator setups myself, as it is not my thing, but I am quite
interested in what the key working principles are supposed to be behind them which are supposed to lead to the 'OU results',
and whether they can be shown to actually 'work' in practice. If it works in a motor/generator setup, then I think
there is at least a possibility that the same principles might be put to use in a complete solid state setup as well.
This is why I have personally been following along with this discussion about Bedini's motor/generator setups so far.
Let's please stick to discussing the topic at hand, and if one or more people are disrupting things and won't take
the hint to cut it out, then simply do something about it... ;D

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 07:13:58 PM
Erfinder

Soooo
you need a Donor ?



only criteria is open source ?
no business interests of any kind [from Angel Donors]

reading your comments over the years
I know you have put huge blocks of your life  into this ,My response above was for me !
not meant as judgment of others and their needs or responsibilities.

 
I expect a strong response [but will not clog this thread any further ....

 

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on November 14, 2017, 07:16:00 PM
Quote
People may not want to spend time reading through a long PDF

Unfortunately as an explanation I can offer only even longer PDF... and if 4 pages is too long... probably it does not help anyway.

 :-X
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 07:16:00 PM
I expect a strong response here....

Hi Ramset, you are free to do as you want if this is your thread, but maybe if you two guys took
your 'discussion' to PM it would be less disruptive to the topic currently at hand? ;)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 14, 2017, 07:19:24 PM
Void
sorry for the intrusion
I have nothing but appreciation for those who help here.

respectfully
Chet
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 07:19:38 PM
Unfortunately as an explanation I can offer only even longer PDF... and if 4 pages is too long... probably it does not help anyway.
 :-X

Many people here are quite limited in free time. ;) I don't see why you shouldn't be able to post
a brief description about what specifically you think is unusual with your setup. :) Just a few lines
to say what you think is happening that you think is unusual or notable.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on November 14, 2017, 07:44:13 PM
Many people here are quite limited in free time. ;) I don't see why you shouldn't be able to post
a brief description about what specifically you think is unusual with your setup. :) Just a few lines
to say what you think is happening that you think is unusual or notable.

Very well. Pulsing coil on ferrite core with very short and high current pulses produce NR.
Nothing really unusual. Many people claimed it but nobody demonstrated it.
With minimal efforts you can see a real FE effect... and experiment arranged so that you don't need do precise measurements, you just see it on scope traces.

Thank you for your time :)



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on November 14, 2017, 07:54:24 PM
Very well. Pulsing coil on ferrite core with very short and high current pulses produce NR.
Nothing really unusual. Many people claimed it but nobody demonstrated it.
With minimal efforts you can see a real FE effect... and experiment arranged so that you don't need do precise measurements, you just see it on scope traces.

Thank you for your time :)

I for one am interested in what you have to say here.  If you would, please attach your pdf so those of us that do have the time may gain from your experience!

Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 07:59:30 PM
Very well. Pulsing coil on ferrite core with very short and high current pulses produce NR.
Nothing really unusual. Many people claimed it but nobody demonstrated it.
With minimal efforts you can see a real FE effect... and experiment arranged so that you don't need do precise measurements, you just see it on scope traces.
Thank you for your time :)

Hi vasik041. Thanks for the summary. :)

I did browse quickly through your PDF, but the main potential problem I see is there
really is too much room for measurement error and outside influences such as electrical/EM background noise
skewing results at really low power levels like that. I have seen what appears to be very interesting effects at
low power levels as well in different setups, but I have found that what can appear to be OU at very low power levels
may well not hold up when scaled up to higher power levels. Other people here might be interested to look into
your setup further however.

Edit: Oh, I see 'NR' means negative resistance...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 08:05:04 PM
I for one am interested in what you have to say here.  If you would, please attach your pdf so those of us that do have the time may gain from your experience!
Regards,
Pm

Hi partzman. He already did attach his PDF to his reply in Post #101...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on November 14, 2017, 08:09:21 PM
I for one am interested in what you have to say here.  If you would, please attach your pdf so those of us that do have the time may gain from your experience!

Attached PDF describes shortly how I came to it.
PDF with experiment is here http://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg513078/#msg513078 (http://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg513078/#msg513078)
There is also thread on OUR http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3453.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3453.0)

Hope it helps somebody.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 08:20:49 PM
Hi vasik041. Aside from the problem of measurement error etc., being potentially much more significant
at very low power levels, another possibility for the difference in capacitor charge voltage with the
extra coil and magnet added is you are changing the overall output impedance when adding the
extra coil, and this can certainly lead to a difference in efficiency. This is another reason why you are probably
going to want to scale it up to a much higher power level if you want any real chance of seeing if something
unusual is really going on there. At the microwatts level and even at the low milliwatts level I think it is hard to
reasonably draw any conclusions unless you can make it self running somehow... I am not trying to be negative here. :)
Just speaking from long experience...

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on November 14, 2017, 08:24:53 PM
Attached PDF describes shortly how I came to it.
PDF with experiment is here http://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg513078/#msg513078 (http://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg513078/#msg513078)
There is also thread on OUR http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3453.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3453.0)

Hope it helps somebody.

@Void- Thanks for the heads up as I wasn't paying attention!

@Vasik- Unbelievable!  I remembered someone who had published test results of BH curves that were unusual, but my past searching on the web had been unsuccessfully, that is, until now!  So, low and behold, here you are!!!  I greatly appreciate your work and would like to express my sincere thanks for sharing.

Regards,

Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on November 14, 2017, 09:03:02 PM
At the microwatts level and even at the low milliwatts level I think it is hard to
reasonably draw any conclusions unless you can make it self running somehow... I am not trying to be negative here. :)
Just speaking from long experience...

Hi Void,
I tend to agree with you. From long experience you probably also know that self runner is much more complex and expensive thing.
It is very unlikely that anybody who achieved it want talk to people and even more unlikely that anybody take him seriously.
Thats reality of our busy world  :)

Regards,
/V.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on November 14, 2017, 09:13:18 PM
@Vasik- Unbelievable!  I remembered someone who had published test results of BH curves that were unusual, but my past searching on the web had been unsuccessfully, that is, until now!  So, low and behold, here you are!!!  I greatly appreciate your work and would like to express my sincere thanks for sharing.

Hi Partzman,
Thank you, I am glad you found interesting docs :)
They are in the web for several years now and nobody showed any real interest so far.
May be google filtering them out, who knows ?
Anyway, let me know if you have questions etc

Regards,
/V

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 14, 2017, 10:04:33 PM
Hi Void,
I tend to agree with you. From long experience you probably also know that self runner is much more complex and expensive thing.
It is very unlikely that anybody who achieved it want talk to people and even more unlikely that anybody take him seriously.
Thats reality of our busy world  :)
Regards,
/V.

Hi vasik041. I would say that is the reality of our crazy world. ;D

What you have experimented with may really be showing some unusual effect, but
unless you or someone else is willing to try to scale it up to higher power levels, it may
continue to be overlooked. The problem is there are so many different setups where people
have claimed OU or possible OU, and it just doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny, so it is
natural for people to become a lot more cautious after a while in regards to what they are going
to spend time looking into. It sounds like at least one other person here is interested in your setup,
so maybe someone will try to scale it up in power and see what the results are at higher power levels.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 12:13:06 AM
Ramset, Tinman:



You always have to draw the line somewhere in this world regarding *all* matters. If someone
is disrupting things, then something needs to be done or it will likely only continue or get worse. ;)
If someone obviously doesn't have a clue about how to communicate in a civil manner, then whether it is
in a work place or a library or a court of law or in a family household or in some sort of discussion forum, you
just have to draw the line somewhere and do something concrete about it when the line is crossed. Otherwise
chaos is the only likely result. ;D

I realize that disruptive behavior and constantly throwing out insults etc., is the mentality level of many people in
this world, but that doesn't mean you have to put up with that sort of ignorant behaviour here. ;D
It doesn't matter at all if that person potentially has something useful to add. If they are constantly disrupting
things and throwing out insults, then obviously something needs to be done. There typically is just no reasoning
with people who are that ignorant/troubled, so in such a case something needs to be done.  Otherwise, there is a a good
chance that many who are interested in some serious exchange of knowledge and ideas here will quickly move on...

I am personally not interested in building motor/generator setups myself, as it is not my thing, but I am quite
interested in what the key working principles are supposed to be behind them which are supposed to lead to the 'OU results',
and whether they can be shown to actually 'work' in practice. If it works in a motor/generator setup, then I think
there is at least a possibility that the same principles might be put to use in a complete solid state setup as well.
This is why I have personally been following along with this discussion about Bedini's motor/generator setups so far.
Let's please stick to discussing the topic at hand, and if one or more people are disrupting things and won't take
the hint to cut it out, then simply do something about it... ;D

Quote
Is this going to be just another thread overrun by trolling and insults like many other threads, or what? ;)

Well i did ask Erfinder to stop posting in this thread nicely,unless the posts were going to be of a helpful nature.
But as you can see,he seems to have disregarded that request,and i cant be here 24 hours a day to remove his rubbish.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 12:33:52 AM
author=Void link=topic=17491.msg513070#msg513070 date=1510674750]
 


Quote
Hi Brad. I can't say for sure, but I would guess that it will not help much in any way.
The batteries will continue to run down with no charge being applied to them.

Unless of course,the voltage across the caps and motor was at a higher potential than the two supply batteries voltages combined.

Quote
From what I can see, the whole point of this type of arrangement is to send a charge to a
battery within a one second or so window while the battery is fully disconnected from driving the motor.

Yes,and that will be done.
The question i asked was just that-a question regarding something we could try along the way.

Quote
The reason for this is if you try to send charging pulses to the battery while the battery is still driving the
motor, that momentary charge pulse or pulses (which equates to a small momentary battery voltage increase on the battery)
will just cause the motor to drive a little bit harder while the charge pulse(s) are being applied, and there will be
little to no gain in charge in the battery.  To try to get around this problem, Bedini's approach was to disconnect
the battery from the motor for about one second, use the momentum of the big flywheel to keep the generator
up to speed, and send one or more charging pulses to the battery during this one second window where the
battery is not connected to any load.

Yes,and we will be doing that.  ;)

Quote
I don't know Bedini's stuff really in depth, but the impression I get is that Bedini's OU claims for these type of setups
seems to involve having a special configuration of generator (energizer) and taking advantage of a special type
of pulsing to charge batteries in an unusual way. It seems supposedly some sort of special battery charging
action is supposed to occur which allows the batteries to charge much more efficiently than would normally occur with
more 'normal' battery charging approaches. Possibly just sending huge momentary current pulses to the battery using a large
capacitance capacitor pulse discharge is the 'secret' to getting the battery to charge faster than normal, but
something also has to first get that large capacitance cap bank charged up very fast as well during the one second window
where the cap bank is charging, so the 'energizer' would seem to need to be doing something unusual as well.

As of yet,no one has been able to show this !unusual! from the energizer.

Quote
Also, Bedini has mentioned that the battery can get damaged from charging with those large current pulses,
so it makes me wonder if these large setups can really work for any sort of an extended run even if you
can get the battery to stay charged for short runs. The question is, does sending really large current pulses to a
battery really give it a true charge, or is it just some sort of misleading 'surface charge' that occurs
which makes it look like the battery is staying charged up for shorter runs, but which will not really keep the
battery charged for long duration runs over 24 hours?

I would say the later,where they are being fooled by a surface charge on the battery--like all pulse motor fans are-->fooled by what they see across the battery.

Quote
I will be interested to see what your current setup can do as it is, to get a baseline of how it is performing.
If it is not performing well, maybe building a bit smaller scale setup using the most efficient DC motor you can
find and following Bedini's approach to building the energizer as closely as can be determined with whatever details
are available could maybe be tried by someone to see if it has much better performance than your current setup.


There is the problem--finding info to Bedini's energizer.
What ever we find,be it from Bedini's own hand drawn schematic,to some here,it's not how it is built or works.

The fact is,if there is a cap across the energizer's output,then that cap will absorb any pulses sent from the energizer,and so,no pulses will reach the battery--it will be a smooth current flow for the 1 second period the energizer is returning energy back to the batteries.

So,the way it is done,using a Bedini style energizer,is the power is only pulled from the coil's as the magnet is leaving the core.
So it is a half wave rectification of each coil.

The energizer it self,built the way stated in the !book!,would be of very poor efficiency.
We have hand wound coil's,soft iron bolts for core's,which would mean a large loss due to Eddy currents in the core's them self.

I have read the !books!,and must say that the energizer,built as Bedini stated,will not have a hope in hell of delivering the energy required,back to the battery.

I will be building the energizer/magneto that Bedini specifies,but i do not hold much hope for it to perform the way we need it to.

Even if we stick to exact's,there will be those here that will tell you you have done it wrong-->and they will be the same people that cannot tell you how to build it right.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 12:38:09 AM
Here is where I am in concert with Erfinder here....

In Brads first post he states the purpose of this thread....

"This thread will be a place where we replicate/build to the exact specs,any claimed OU device. We will need actual builders here,and not just keyboard jockeys."

I have in the past seen what people call "replications" that end up not being anything close to "exact specs", and then they say they have come to conclusions that the original must be bogus because their NEW VERSION of what they think is a better plan did not work.  It is so laughable. But Im not laughing. Im disgusted. This has been happening for years now. Its a joke.

Then Cifta thinks the latest circuit is some sort of genius, and it hasnt even been tested yet.  That circuit IS NOT the Bedini circuit to the EXACT SPECS as the thread was stated to follow.  So lets just toss the 'no keyboard jockeys' rule also then why dont we. ;) I mean, if we dont have to follow the EXACT SPEC rule, why should any other rules apply? ??? Ridiculous.

Of anything Erfinder has said here, it is all meant to say pretty much what I have just said. So Im in total agreement with his arguments on this, as 'should' many others here.

Brad said the thread was inspired by a pm to put up this thread. And just a few posts later Brad says how about the Bedini, then settles on it. From what I understand over the years, the Bedini devices/machines were not about a circuit layout to produce claimed results. LOOK AT THE ENERGIZER!!!  Everything else is off the shelf!!!  The energizer is the only thing that you cannot buy ready made!!!!  How is it that all of you can overlook that and just pick and choose what you think you can replace that with and call it an exact replication???????   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Well, if you all know better, then carry on.  The end result will be "Bedini was a fake", and making that claim with a machine that had nothing to do with Bedini. That is my prediction. A prediction based on experience here in this and other forums. I cannot respect that in the least.

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 01:14:41 AM
author=Void link=topic=17491.msg513070#msg513070 date=1510674750]
 



There is the problem--finding info to Bedini's energizer.
What ever we find,be it from Bedini's own hand drawn schematic,to some here,it's not how it is built or works.

The fact is,if there is a cap across the energizer's output,then that cap will absorb any pulses sent from the energizer,and so,no pulses will reach the battery--it will be a smooth current flow for the 1 second period the energizer is returning energy back to the batteries.

So,the way it is done,using a Bedini style energizer,is the power is only pulled from the coil's as the magnet is leaving the core.
So it is a half wave rectification of each coil.

The energizer it self,built the way stated in the !book!,would be of very poor efficiency.
We have hand wound coil's,soft iron bolts for core's,which would mean a large loss due to Eddy currents in the core's them self.

I have read the !books!,and must say that the energizer,built as Bedini stated,will not have a hope in hell of delivering the energy required,back to the battery.

I will be building the energizer/magneto that Bedini specifies,but i do not hold much hope for it to perform the way we need it to.

Even if we stick to exact's,there will be those here that will tell you you have done it wrong-->and they will be the same people that cannot tell you how to build it right.


Brad

The question on the energizer should be, what advantages would we want from the energizer end of the machine? Other than it is able to charge a battery or cap adequately, what attribute would be favorable in this system? What attributes of your washing machine motor as a gen would you like to be rid of to make it way better at being a gen? ???  That is what you need to look for when building and testing your energizer. You may or may not get terrific results the first build. It does not mean you should come to a final conclusion yet.

Many may disagree, but I believe Romero had it down. He concentrated on 1 specific aspect of the gen side of his system. He put a lot of time and effort in getting the best result to satisfy the goal..


Mags


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 15, 2017, 03:07:22 AM
Well, suppose someone had access to actual machines actually built by or under the direct supervision of John Bedini himself? Even with his signature or trademark right there laser-etched into the plastic? If _these_ machines were tested properly and found wanting -- that is, if they did not run themselves in self-looping, or by daisy-chaining with identical machines, or produce any actual overunity performance -- what then Mags and EF? What would be the conclusion?

Would you say that the Bedini phenomenon was just a mass delusion perpetrated by a huckster, or would you say that the experimenters themselves were idiots or dishonest or worse and needed Bedini himself (or his ghost) to operate the machines properly? Or is some other conclusion possible?

What then?


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 04:32:47 AM
Well, suppose someone had access to actual machines actually built by or under the direct supervision of John Bedini himself? Even with his signature or trademark right there laser-etched into the plastic? If _these_ machines were tested properly and found wanting -- that is, if they did not run themselves in self-looping, or by daisy-chaining with identical machines, or produce any actual overunity performance -- what then Mags and EF? What would be the conclusion?

Would you say that the Bedini phenomenon was just a mass delusion perpetrated by a huckster, or would you say that the experimenters themselves were idiots or dishonest or worse and needed Bedini himself (or his ghost) to operate the machines properly? Or is some other conclusion possible?

What then?

Have you tested these machines you talk about??  Lots of speculated 'ifs'. In fact I would need to test it myself to come any conclusions. So my answer is no.

With all that you just said, does that give lots of leeway to not having to stick with the circuit shown and just creating some new circuit that one thinks is just better before knowing and experiencing the original at all? ??? ::) What is so wrong with building the so called replication as closely to the depiction as possible especially if that was the set objective of the thread?? This is the problem with yours and other replications. They are alterations, not actual replications, and then you guys use that to debunk claims saying there is no difference. I cannot accept nor respect those conclusions. Sorry, but......

If the energizer is the 1 unique thing that we see in the depiction, would that not be something we should concentrate on being all else is obvious?

Brads 12v motor may not be the one that works best for his setup for example. Its just pulling a 12v motor off the pile and saying this is the one. Its, this is the flywheel and this is the gen, and the circuit, as simple as it already is, needs improvement and altered before anything is tried with the original circuit.  Heck, maybe there are 50 other 12v motors that would be better fit. This isnt some 3 day build that we can say for sure that Bedini had nothing to match his claim. You should know this.

Me? Im putting together some things to experiment on the energizer end first.  None of the other stuff matters unless the energizer is the best gen we could hope for. Then I would look for or build the most eff motor as a driver as needed. Then is the flywheel too much, not enough, or just right. Correct the switching as needed, etc.


Sure once the replication is made and tested, then things can be varied as necessary during testing naturally as we dont have those specs. But to just assume that the energizer is just some typical gen or alternator is wrong, otherwise that energizer would be labeled and look like say a car alternator, or 12v, 120v whatever generator. It is not.

Mags

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 11:08:52 AM
author=Magluvin link=topic=17491.msg513113#msg513113 date=1510702689]
.





Quote
"This thread will be a place where we replicate/build to the exact specs,any claimed OU device. We will need actual builders here,and not just keyboard jockeys."

I have in the past seen what people call "replications" that end up not being anything close to "exact specs", and then they say they have come to conclusions that the original must be bogus because their NEW VERSION of what they think is a better plan did not work.  It is so laughable. But Im not laughing. Im disgusted. This has been happening for years now. Its a joke.

Then all you have to do is !as i have asked on many occasions now!,provide the exact spec's of the energizer--it's that simple.

Quote
Then Cifta thinks the latest circuit is some sort of genius, and it hasnt even been tested yet.  That circuit IS NOT the Bedini circuit to the EXACT SPECS as the thread was stated to follow.  So lets just toss the 'no keyboard jockeys' rule also then why dont we. ;) I mean, if we dont have to follow the EXACT SPEC rule, why should any other rules apply? ??? Ridiculous.

Perhaps you missed my post,when i clearly stated that it was nothing more than a question--a thought i had along the way to building the exact machine-->that no one seems to know what it is-->the exact bit.

Are you too going to be one of those that say !it's all wrong!,but cannot provide what is correct?
Can you state the differences between my energizer and John's,other than the way it looks?

Quote
Of anything Erfinder has said here, it is all meant to say pretty much what I have just said. So Im in total agreement with his arguments on this, as 'should' many others here.

Then provide proof that my energizer is different to that of John--other than it's appearance
What is different about the electrical output between mine and Johns?

Quote
Brad said the thread was inspired by a pm to put up this thread. And just a few posts later Brad says how about the Bedini, then settles on it.

Nope
Grum put up the Bedini energizer,and i said lets give it a go.

Quote
From what I understand over the years, the Bedini devices/machines were not about a circuit layout to produce claimed results. LOOK AT THE ENERGIZER!!!  Everything else is off the shelf!!!  The energizer is the only thing that you cannot buy ready made!!!!  How is it that all of you can overlook that and just pick and choose what you think you can replace that with and call it an exact replication???????   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Then explain to everyone here,how Bedini's energizer is any different to any other PM generator.
Once you have done this,then you have the right to say we are doing it wrong.

Quote
Well, if you all know better, then carry on.  The end result will be "Bedini was a fake", and making that claim with a machine that had nothing to do with Bedini. That is my prediction. A prediction based on experience here in this and other forums. I cannot respect that in the least.

It wouldnt matter if we replicated it down to the last bit of dust on the flywheel,when/if it showed negative results(like every one elses exact replications have),we still would have done it wrong--hey Mag's.

As i stated earlier,there will be those that claim it is being done wrong-->those very same people will not be able to explain as to why or how it's wrong,nor be able to provide the exact specs needed to make it right.

Quote
Here is where I am in concert with Erfinder here...

You have caught the Erfinder flu--much to say about how things are wrong,but provide nothing that is correct  ::)


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 11:30:28 AM
In fact I would need to test it myself to come any conclusions. So my answer is no.

With all that you just said, does that give lots of leeway to not having to stick with the circuit shown and just creating some new circuit that one thinks is just better before knowing and experiencing the original at all? ??? ::) What is so wrong with building the so called replication as closely to the depiction as possible especially if that was the set objective of the thread?? This is the problem with yours and other replications. They are alterations, not actual replications, and then you guys use that to debunk claims saying there is no difference. I cannot accept nor respect those conclusions. Sorry, but......

If the energizer is the 1 unique thing that we see in the depiction, would that not be something we should concentrate on being all else is obvious?

Brads 12v motor may not be the one that works best for his setup for example. Its just pulling a 12v motor off the pile and saying this is the one. Its, this is the flywheel and this is the gen, and the circuit, as simple as it already is, needs improvement and altered before anything is tried with the original circuit.  Heck, maybe there are 50 other 12v motors that would be better fit. This isnt some 3 day build that we can say for sure that Bedini had nothing to match his claim. You should know this.

Me? Im putting together some things to experiment on the energizer end first.  None of the other stuff matters unless the energizer is the best gen we could hope for. Then I would look for or build the most eff motor as a driver as needed. Then is the flywheel too much, not enough, or just right. Correct the switching as needed, etc.


Sure once the replication is made and tested, then things can be varied as necessary during testing naturally as we dont have those specs. But to just assume that the energizer is just some typical gen or alternator is wrong, otherwise that energizer would be labeled and look like say a car alternator, or 12v, 120v whatever generator. It is not.

Mags

Quote
Have you tested these machines you talk about??  Lots of speculated 'ifs'.

You may have a surprise coming your way  ;)

As to the rest of your post--it is very simple,as i stated in my last post.

The exact circuit will be used,and my circuit i posted was nothing more than a question--which you must have missed.

As for the energizer--you provide exact's,and i will build to those exact's.

What is the energizer?
It has a rotor with magnets that pass a bunch of coils on a stator
6 magnets,and 6 coils.
The coil core's are made from soft iron bolts-->this is the V2 we are talking about here.
The coils are hooked in series,and are half wave rectified,so as current only flows once the magnets are leaving the core.
In Bedini's V2,he used a 12v fan motor from a car-a PM motor which PL says is no good--so who do we believe.

As i said,what advantage would Bedini's energizer have over my very well built generator,that has laminated core's,which would have far less eddy current loss than a solid iron core.
It has machine wound coil's,unlike the energizer with it's hand wound coil's.

I can half wave rectify my generator exactly as John did.

It's all well and good to make the big shout about it being all wrong,but you must be able to back it up with why it's wrong,and followed by what is right.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 12:35:31 PM
Some facts that some of you may not want to hear.

Here is a couple of statements from John Bedini that he made in his 1984 book-Bedini's Free Energy Generator.
Quote: The waves we want to generate,are like those from old DC generators.

Quote: I have run some test's in my lab,and discovered that certain types of energizers,generator's,and alternators do what we need.

Quote:Below is a picture of John next to one of his !working! prototypes in the early 1980's

What do you know,the energizer looks nothing like the one in his 1984 schematic  ::),and has no flywheel,and yet still is a working machine,in that it self charges the battery.

How is the low drag energizer made?

Well,here it is,straight from there books.

The theory is this.
We only draw current from the coil's after the magnet has passed the coils,and not before.

Reason for this-->It is the Bedini's camp belief that if you only draw current from the coil after the magnet has passed the coil,you get less drag from the energizer than you would if you collected the current from the coil before the magnet reaches the center of the coil.

In other words,if the top half of the wave form is the magnet approaching the coil,and the bottom half of the wave form is the magnet leaving the coil,we should only pull from the bottom half of the wave form,as pulling from the top half of the wave form will create more drag  ::)

Another claim that just cant be.
It is claimed that for 1 second,the batteries feed power to the motor,and for the next second,the energizer recharges the batteries.

If we look at Johns own schematic below,we can see that that is just not the case,as it has commutated switching,and the time the motor is powered,and the time that the energizer is charging the battery,is dependent on the RPM of the motor.

Lets say the motor is doing a mere 1000RPM.
That would mean that the commutator would switch from powering the motor,to charging the battery 32 times a second-a far cry from 1 second each.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 15, 2017, 12:54:48 PM
Hi All.

John Bedini talked a lot about “ tuning “ .....

In the 1984 sketch I see an LC tank circuit, there’s even an arrow through the capacitor symbol.

I can’t elaborate on this further without a build, I must try and get into the workshop.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 01:43:43 PM
 author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg513129#msg513129 date=1510747128]

....
Quote
.it only took ten pages for the discussion to transition from a piss poor replication into a full blown debunking...  congratulations!

Im afraid your shit out of luck now Erfinder.

I just spent the last 1 1/2 hours looking through all my saved PDF file's on an old HD.

Guess what i found  ;)

Bedini's Free Energy Generator book from 1984.

Guess what it has in it  :D--Yep,the actual list of the parts used,a description of the complete device--The V2,and a description of how it all worked--all the details for an exact replication.

You should now be doing back flip's,as you can no longer say that it will not be an exact replication--no more of your garbage.

Just in case you dont believe me,i have added a screen shot for ya.

Just finished reading the whole thing,and now i have the ammo needed to put your sorry ass back into it's place--unless you think you know more than JB him self.

Sorry to say,but the energizer really is nothing more than a simple PM alternator--from JBs own mouth lol.

Your goose is cooked,and your constant babble has just be exposed for what it is--bullshit.


Have a nice day


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 01:46:39 PM
author=Magluvin link=topic=17491.msg513113#msg513113 date=1510702689]
.





Then all you have to do is !as i have asked on many occasions now!,provide the exact spec's of the energizer--it's that simple.

Perhaps you missed my post,when i clearly stated that it was nothing more than a question--a thought i had along the way to building the exact machine-->that no one seems to know what it is-->the exact bit.

Are you too going to be one of those that say !it's all wrong!,but cannot provide what is correct?
Can you state the differences between my energizer and John's,other than the way it looks?

Then provide proof that my energizer is different to that of John--other than it's appearance
What is different about the electrical output between mine and Johns?

Nope
Grum put up the Bedini energizer,and i said lets give it a go.

Then explain to everyone here,how Bedini's energizer is any different to any other PM generator.
Once you have done this,then you have the right to say we are doing it wrong.

It wouldnt matter if we replicated it down to the last bit of dust on the flywheel,when/if it showed negative results(like every one elses exact replications have),we still would have done it wrong--hey Mag's.

As i stated earlier,there will be those that claim it is being done wrong-->those very same people will not be able to explain as to why or how it's wrong,nor be able to provide the exact specs needed to make it right.

You have caught the Erfinder flu--much to say about how things are wrong,but provide nothing that is correct  ::)


Brad

Here is the thing....And its a response to all your replies above.....

Clearly the 2 depictions show all N mags. Why do you think that there were all N mags? Some gimmick?  Or is there a purpose that is not magical but logical for the situation?

Why not try and make it as shown? Too much work involved? Its only 6 coils. Only 6 magnets.

If this were a place that actually wanted to investigate claims, like say even a gov project facility for example, where people took the time to try and replicate with all that is shown as accurately as they could, to get some sort of base reference, do you honestly think they would substitute the energizer portion of the machine with you washing machine motor as a gen? If the people were serious about what they were trying to investigate, then the answer should be no.

I know you are going into this with the idea that you will not see good results. Tk calls Bedini a huckster. And I imagine you follow the same lines going into this. So there is no vested interest in going all the way because you are all set on it is a joke. Too much bias to delve into it seriously. Like I know you are doing a lot with what you have shown of what you are attempting to show. Im not doubting that and Im as impressed as Erfinder with what you have put together in a short amount of time. But I truly believe we will all be missing out on the actual ideas involved in the original workings by doing so, if you happen to conclude that the machine is worthless after the fact... Thats what Im trying to convey here. 

Back in the days of the Whipmag, Tk, then his short name was Al, he stressed that replications should be as accurate as possible. Well these days it doesnt seem that way and replications become altered so much that they are not even recognizable in so many ways I want to cry. :-X ;)   



Gota git to work.

Mags

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 01:51:30 PM
author=Erfinder link=topic=17491.msg513129#msg513129 date=1510747128]

....
Im afraid your shit out of luck now Erfinder.

I just spent the last 1 1/2 hours looking through all my saved PDF file's on an old HD.

Guess what i found  ;)

Bedini's Free Energy Generator book from 1984.

Guess what it has in it  :D --Yep,the actual list of the parts used,a description of the complete device--The V2,and a description of how it all worked--all the details for an exact replication.

You should now be doing back flip's,as you can no longer say that it will not be an exact replication--no more of your garbage.

Just in case you dont believe me,i have added a screen shot for ya.

Just finished reading the whole thing,and now i have the ammo needed to put your sorry ass back into it's place--unless you think you know more than JB him self.

Sorry to say,but the energizer really is nothing more than a simple PM alternator--from JBs own mouth lol.

Your goose is cooked,and your constant babble has just be exposed for what it is--bullshit.


Have a nice day


Brad

Ive read you have read a pdf. Is that it? Can you post it here? I could not seem to find it here after you said you read it through..

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 02:06:59 PM

I'll send you a care package if you want....all books, all videos, old and new.... you know how to reach me.

Cool. Thanks.   I do want what he has so as to be on that same page with him if that is going to be his reference. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 15, 2017, 02:12:32 PM
Unless of course,the voltage across the caps and motor was at a higher potential than the two supply batteries voltages combined.

Hi Brad. If the cap bank is in series with the battery (or batteries) it will not charge
the batteries no matter what its voltage is.


The fact is,if there is a cap across the energizer's output,then that cap will absorb any pulses sent from the energizer,and so,no pulses will reach the battery--it will be a smooth current flow for the 1 second period the energizer is returning energy back to the batteries.

If the cap and batteries are in parallel, then they will all 'see' current coming in pulses from the energizer.


Another claim that just cant be.
It is claimed that for 1 second,the batteries feed power to the motor,and for the next second,the energizer recharges the batteries.
If we look at Johns own schematic below,we can see that that is just not the case,as it has commutated switching,and the time the motor is powered,and the time that the energizer is charging the battery,is dependent on the RPM of the motor.
Lets say the motor is doing a mere 1000RPM.
That would mean that the commutator would switch from powering the motor,to charging the battery 32 times a second-a far cry from 1 second each.

The approximate one second on and one second off is in reference to Watson's large machine
where he was supposed to be using the 555 timer based switching controller circuit devised by Bedini.
When using the controller circuit, you can set the switching duration to whatever you like. How they knew
Watson was using a one second switching duration I am not sure, but that is what Lindemann reported.


All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:25:48 PM
Here is the thing....And its a response to all your replies above.....

Clearly the 2 depictions show all N mags. Why do you think that there were all N mags? Some gimmick?  Or is there a purpose that is not magical but logical for the situation?

Why not try and make it as shown? Too much work involved? Its only 6 coils. Only 6 magnets.

If this were a place that actually wanted to investigate claims, like say even a gov project facility for example, where people took the time to try and replicate with all that is shown as accurately as they could, to get some sort of base reference, do you honestly think they would substitute the energizer portion of the machine with you washing machine motor as a gen? If the people were serious about what they were trying to investigate, then the answer should be no.

 Tk calls Bedini a huckster. And I imagine you follow the same lines going into this. So there is no vested interest in going all the way because you are all set on it is a joke. Too much bias to delve into it seriously. Like I know you are doing a lot with what you have shown of what you are attempting to show. Im not doubting that and Im as impressed as Erfinder with what you have put together in a short amount of time. But I truly believe we will all be missing out on the actual ideas involved in the original workings by doing so, if you happen to conclude that the machine is worthless after the fact... Thats what Im trying to convey here. 

Back in the days of the Whipmag, Tk, then his short name was Al, he stressed that replications should be as accurate as possible. Well these days it doesnt seem that way and replications become altered so much that they are not even recognizable in so many ways I want to cry. :-X ;)   



Gota git to work.

Mags

Quote
I know you are going into this with the idea that you will not see good results.

If that were the case,then why would i be wasting my time and money?
$60.00 already for the correct coupling and bushes.

As for the rest of your post,i now have in front of me exact building plans and a complete description of the device--and how it works.
So,there will be no more--your building it wrong bullshit.

And why do i call it bullshit?--because JB him self states that it can be a home built energizer,a DC generator,or an AC alternator--it is only the wave that we are after.
Guess what that wave is ?--a half wave rectified DC--thats it--his word's along with the wave form needed.

There is no special wave form,no motoring effect from the energizer as Erfinder claims.

It is all about the effects taking place within the lead acid battery--the pulse charging effect.

The battery-->a 12 amp hour motorcycle battery
The motor--> a G.E permanent magnet motor--1100rpm 1/12hp--or 62 watts
Quote: Permanent magnet motors are used due to there high efficiency-->so that eliminates Peter Lindermanns bullshit about having to use a series wound motor.
Coils-->6x 200 turns awg20 wire.
Coils are all in phase,and hooked in series,then half wave rectified on the trailing wave.
6x soft iron bolts as the cores.
6x magnets--early type neo's--all north facing out
Magnets bonded to aluminum disk/rotor
The two commutator brushes must be adjustable,so as fine tuning can be done.

It is also clearly stated that the size of the machine has no effect on it's operational function,and so can be scaled as needed.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:31:07 PM
 author=Void link=topic=17491.msg513138#msg513138 date=1510751552]


Quote
If the cap and batteries are in parallel, then they will all 'see' current coming in pulses from the energizer.

I dont agree with this Void,as that is why we have caps in battery chargers--to smooth out the pulses before the current flows into the battery.

Quote
The approximate one second on and one second off is in reference to Watson's large machine
where he was supposed to be using the 555 timer based switching controller circuit devised by Bedini.
When using the controller circuit, you can set the switching duration to whatever you like. How they knew
Watson was using a one second switching duration I am not sure, but that is what Lindemann reported.

I would think that this the case,as it was John that designed the switching circuit for Jim.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 15, 2017, 02:38:47 PM
I dont agree with this Void,as that is why we have caps in battery chargers--to smooth out the pulses before the current flows into the battery.

Hi Brad. When the battery and cap bank are in parallel, they are acting as just one large capacitor.
They will all absorb the current pulses in a similar way. The battery can be seen as a very huge capacitance
capacitor, although internally it has a different structure.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 15, 2017, 02:40:44 PM

Then Cifta thinks the latest circuit is some sort of genius, and it hasnt even been tested yet.  That circuit IS NOT the Bedini circuit to the EXACT SPECS as the thread was stated to follow.  So lets just toss the 'no keyboard jockeys' rule also then why dont we. ;) I mean, if we dont have to follow the EXACT SPEC rule, why should any other rules apply? ??? Ridiculous.


Mags

Mags,

I am really disappointed in your reaction to my post.  I was only commenting on an idea thrown out by Brad.  He asked what do you think will happen if the circuit is connected like he showed.  It was only an exercise in free thinking. I never suggested it was a good circuit nor an improvement over the original.  In fact as has been pointed out by others the batteries will of course run down as there is no means to keep them charged.  I just thought the idea of connecting the output in series with the power source was a good example of thinking outside the box.

I occasionally get good ideas from you and Brad and Erfinder and others.  I don't always agree with everything any of you post but I still look forward to your opinions and ideas.  If me expressing my opinion about something upsets you so much then I will just keep my thoughts to myself.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:53:29 PM
Dear Erfinder

Your post's are now being removed.

You are no longer welcome in this thread--my thread.

So please start your own thread,if you wish to prove us wrong,by building a working Bedini machine,and presenting it to the members of this forum.


Cheers


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:56:12 PM
Hi Brad. When the battery and cap bank are in parallel, they are acting as just one large capacitor.
They will all absorb the current pulses in a similar way. The battery can be seen as a very huge capacitance
capacitor, although internally it has a different structure.

Ok,well that go's against every thing i have seen on my bench,as a capacitor will do a far better job than a battery at soaking up pulses of current.

Perhaps i should re-examine this on the bench with the scope.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 15, 2017, 02:58:07 PM
Mags,

I am really disappointed in your reaction to my post.  I was only commenting on an idea thrown out by Brad.  He asked what do you think will happen if the circuit is connected like he showed.  It was only an exercise in free thinking. I never suggested it was a good circuit nor an improvement over the original.  In fact as has been pointed out by others the batteries will of course run down as there is no means to keep them charged.  I just thought the idea of connecting the output in series with the power source was a good example of thinking outside the box.

I occasionally get good ideas from you and Brad and Erfinder and others.  I don't always agree with everything any of you post but I still look forward to your opinions and ideas.  If me expressing my opinion about something upsets you so much then I will just keep my thoughts to myself.

Respectfully,
Carroll

I think mags took my circuit as the one i was going to use in my replication.
He may have missed the bit about it being only a thought experiment.

The thought experiment being
-If the motor began to speed up when the switch was switched to position 2,then the generator would also start to produce more power,which in turn would cause the motor to speed up even more--and so the cycle continue's.

If this was the case,then the motor would be receiving more power than the batteries are delivering to it.
Would this be a true power amplifier ?.

Just a thought experiment that we could have tried along the way,with very little modification needed for the experiment.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 15, 2017, 03:38:46 PM
Ok,well that go's against every thing i have seen on my bench,as a capacitor will do a far better job than a battery at soaking up pulses of current.
Perhaps i should re-examine this on the bench with the scope.

Yes, they may not 'absorb' the current pulses equally, but because they are
all in parallel they will all still 'see' the same pulses coming from the energizer. This was
my point. The battery is still going to be subjected to pulses from the energizer when the
cap bank and battery are in parallel. 


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 15, 2017, 03:49:30 PM
The biggest mystery that remains to me is how the large capacitor bank can get charged up
to such a high amount in the short cap charging window durations that it can keep the battery fully
charged up when pulsed into the battery. If someone can demonstrate this showing that the battery can
stay truly charged up even when running for 2 or more days steady, that would really be something....

Here is a comment that John Bedini made about the Watson generator in reply to someone using
the user name 'Electricity' in the Energetic Forum back in Nov. 2010.
John mentions you just need 'one mono pole energizer'.  What exactly is Bedini's 'mono pole energizer'?
Does he mean an energizer where all the magnets are oriented the same way and all the coils are in phase?

=============================
http://www.energeticforum.com/117591-post48.html?s=825af460b5aafab19b288e41b7a711ad
11-20-2010, 04:30 PM
John_Bedini

The Watson Answer
Electricity,
The mystery is none as it is right in front of you. I will give it to you again.

The machine requires one DC motor, 555 timer circuit for pulses to chop the DC motor, one mono pole energizer and one large mass weight wheel. The two signals are out of phase from each other, and a capacitor tuned to the energizer. That is the mystery. Other than that some simple wiring, you won't do it on a small scale. As I said it is right in front of your eyes. It's the way you think about it.

On a big scale it's very easy to work on. Simple logic the bigger the generator section is the slower you must turn it. Since it is not a conventional generator you must store the charge before you discharge
the capacitors to the batteries. If the timing is right the batteries charge right up to full.

It's your own mind stopping you from success as your own mind understands what your intentions are, that is what is stopping you.
All your questions have been answered for years. Very easy to see that once the machine works we will never here of you again.
=============================

Edit:
By a 'tuned' capacitor, I would guess he means that you should try different total capacitance values in your
cap bank and see what works best. Obviously though the cap bank total capacitance has to be chosen to charge
to a voltage higher than the battery voltage or the battery won't charge...
In another comment I saw from Bedini somewhere else, he mentioned that the cap bank only needs to charge to 2 volts
above the battery voltage to get good results, but he was referring to a different setup there I think.

John Bedini also mentions above that "you wont do it on a small scale", so it would seem
based on this that if you build it too small scale it won't work...


All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 04:21:31 PM
Dear Erfinder

Your post's are now being removed.

You are no longer welcome in this thread--my thread.

So please start your own thread,if you wish to prove us wrong,by building a working Bedini machine,and presenting it to the members of this forum.


Cheers


Brad

Well Ive said what I wanted to, just to make the point on what actual replications are suppose to be. I wont post here anymore either. You can delete my posts also if you like.

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 15, 2017, 05:31:07 PM
One more thing..

Sorry Carrol for putting up what you said as an example of what Im stressing for accurate replications. If we think as professionals on these things, then we should all be on board with trying to replicate to the best of our abilities to get the best base line as possible if we are going to really investigate these things seriously. People use to analyze and dissect videos to find clues as to if a claim was faked. Like  there was this crazy guy Mylo that was claiming he had a Howard Johnson motor going and made vid after vid. Tk would point out the mr hand movements off camera that he did to keep the rotor going while aiming the camera at another portion of the device as diversion. Then the guy did other vids on glass dining room tables and shows getting up on the table and walking over it to try to prove there were no 'strings' attached, whatever.
Some viewers looked into the vids like it was CSI and found the fishing line loop going to the motor under the couch cushion that was driving the rotor. But we dont see that level of investigation these days. If we are serious about all this, and we should be, then we should be very detail oriented and not trying to idealize what is happening or what we think may be a better idea before we produce as best a replication as possible and study that first as a base line. Like the depictions show 1 battery. Then why change it to 2 in series?? There is no good reason to make any changes of what we can see of the build. Like we could look at some of the items in the photos that we can use as a reference as to size of things that we have no data on. People used to do that in the Whipmag days. I dont see that anymore.

So Id like to see everyone that gets involved to put those kind of efforts into these replication projects so there can be a straight up conclusion in the end. We are putting our selves up as judge and jury with this stuff. I think free energy is a serious enough thing that we should look at it as if the claimers life is on the line in order to get to the honest truth. Otherwise if the investigation is tainted or handled with initial bias, then the end results may not be felt as conclusive.

And what you said in the other thread about resonance. I get what you mean. Like I could just say that we get some advantages to the LC ringdown. But that ring down frequency is called what?  Would it be called its resonant freq?  I think so. Speakers have Fs or some call it Fo and it is the resonant freq of the speaker itself. Or reed switches, they have a resonant freq spec also, something that you want to stay away from in typical use for switching. So Ill change how I talk about that subject when it is not just a constant resonant reaction to a constant input or signal, like the speaker boxs are. ;) But I still think there are advantages to the ringing one way or the other.

Mags


 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 15, 2017, 08:40:06 PM
Hi guys :
If stator coil is an open-circuit while magnet is approaching and so there is no any opposition, rotor gains some energy just only from the fact that magnet is attracted from the iron core. It is some kind of magnetic energy transformation to kinetic. So to my innocent eye, looks like that if coil is activated from the moment that magnet is aligned with it, up to a certain "critical" moment, then after this point attraction again will equalize the loss in kinetic due to Lenz which takes place when coil is "on".

At least one of the effects that could take place in there. ::)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 15, 2017, 09:33:12 PM
Hi guys :
If stator coil is an open-circuit while magnet is approaching and so there is no any opposition, rotor gains some energy just only from the fact that magnet is attracted from the iron core. It is some kind of magnetic energy transformation to kinetic. So to my innocent eye, looks like that if coil is activated from the moment that magnet is aligned with it, up to a certain "critical" moment, then after this point attraction again will equalize the loss in kinetic due to Lenz which takes place when coil is "on".

At least one of the effects that could take place in there. ::)

Hi Jeg.

Now you're talking!!

So, what would happen if we have the capacitor across the coil? Would its charging affect the operation of your statement above? Or do we close the switch onto the capacitor and coil at the maximum?

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 15, 2017, 10:32:34 PM
Hi Graham :)
 It will be charged as normally, but needs to be discharged before loosing its charges if it is not to use diodes.

(i erase that as wrong assumption)

regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 16, 2017, 10:34:00 AM
Tuning the cap/coil to magnet revolutions per second seems to be to our advantage.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 16, 2017, 01:49:23 PM
The biggest mystery that remains to me is how the large capacitor bank can get charged up
to such a high amount in the short cap charging window durations that it can keep the battery fully
charged up when pulsed into the battery. If someone can demonstrate this showing that the battery can
stay truly charged up even when running for 2 or more days steady, that would really be something....

Here is a comment that John Bedini made about the Watson generator in reply to someone using
the user name 'Electricity' in the Energetic Forum back in Nov. 2010.
John mentions you just need 'one mono pole energizer'.  What exactly is Bedini's 'mono pole energizer'?
Does he mean an energizer where all the magnets are oriented the same way and all the coils are in phase?

=============================
http://www.energeticforum.com/117591-post48.html?s=825af460b5aafab19b288e41b7a711ad
11-20-2010, 04:30 PM
John_Bedini

The Watson Answer
Electricity,
The mystery is none as it is right in front of you. I will give it to you again.

The machine requires one DC motor, 555 timer circuit for pulses to chop the DC motor, one mono pole energizer and one large mass weight wheel. The two signals are out of phase from each other, and a capacitor tuned to the energizer. That is the mystery. Other than that some simple wiring, you won't do it on a small scale. As I said it is right in front of your eyes. It's the way you think about it.

On a big scale it's very easy to work on. Simple logic the bigger the generator section is the slower you must turn it. Since it is not a conventional generator you must store the charge before you discharge
the capacitors to the batteries. If the timing is right the batteries charge right up to full.

It's your own mind stopping you from success as your own mind understands what your intentions are, that is what is stopping you.
All your questions have been answered for years. Very easy to see that once the machine works we will never here of you again.
=============================

Edit:
By a 'tuned' capacitor, I would guess he means that you should try different total capacitance values in your
cap bank and see what works best. Obviously though the cap bank total capacitance has to be chosen to charge
to a voltage higher than the battery voltage or the battery won't charge...
In another comment I saw from Bedini somewhere else, he mentioned that the cap bank only needs to charge to 2 volts
above the battery voltage to get good results, but he was referring to a different setup there I think.

John Bedini also mentions above that "you wont do it on a small scale", so it would seem
based on this that if you build it too small scale it won't work...


All the best...

John says in his 1984 book-bedinis free energy generator,that his working modle had a 1/12 hp motor-or 60 watts.
This means his working modle was very small-not large.

Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 16, 2017, 02:06:20 PM
John says in his 1984 book-bedinis free energy generator,that his working modle had a 1/12 hp motor-or 60 watts.
This means his working modle was very small-not large.

Brad

Indeed. And having studied this early device you can see how John morphed it towards a motor/generator like the SSG.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 16, 2017, 02:14:09 PM
John says in his 1984 book-bedinis free energy generator,that his working modle had a 1/12 hp motor-or 60 watts.
This means his working modle was very small-not large.
Brad

Hi Tinman. Keep in mind I was quoting John Bedini who was commenting on the Watson machine...

Edit:
Here is some info I found on Jim Watson's demonstration at the Tesla Symposium in 1984:
https://energy-tesla.com/john-bedini-energizers-1/
"Bedini’s demonstration was followed by Jim Watson, a research scientist living in Colorado Springs.
Watson presented two working devices similar to John Bedini’s. The smaller device was running during
Watson’s entire presentation and the audience could verify that the battery was being recharged constantly.
The larger device, which weighed 800 pounds, was demonstrated only for 10 minutes due to practical reasons.
During this time a constant load of 12kw could be withdrawn from the device. The device itself was powered by
two 12v car batteries. Jim sold us all out, and I have moved on to other things."

It sounds like Jim Watson didn't demonstrate either device very long, with the big machine only running for ten minutes.

I also read that the theory of where the OU is coming from in these Bedini setups is supposedly to do with shaking
up the ions or something like that in lead acid batteries, and supposedly causing the batteries to charge up in some
very unusual way.  In that case it seems the cap discharge pulses that you send to the battery wouldn't have to equal
the power the battery is supplying.  Power-wise it can apparently be less, and somehow if you get things 'tuned' right
the battery will supposedly stay charged up fully. So it seems there is some mysterious 'tuning process' involved in there
that you have to fiddle with to get the OU battery charging mode to occur. It seems this mysterious tuning process
to get the magic OU battery charging effect is what people have been having problems succeeding at.


All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 16, 2017, 03:55:08 PM
@tinman

Oh boy. Is it not hard enough just to keep time for bench works but then having to put time on responding to such conversations makes it hard to work so I just don't know how you do it for so many years now. Full respect to you man.

So, just by the specs of your chosen main components as rated voltage, amperage, rpm for their standard operational mode, I will know if you have a chance or not. Standard components are made for specific tasks so if you can run them in their standard rpm ratings, you can expect a certain result. If in theory the stator is too small to send back what the dc motor needs, then stop and choose a better match. Don't do anything before you have that. The system flywheel can be hand turned to start it up. You want your battery rating to be around 2 volts below the gen rectified output. Do not forget that the 2 volts needs to be there while the stator is under drag. 20% of the battery amperage rating should equal the charge amperage available. No more. If not matching you may otherwise have to step up to charge the battery and hold enough amperage but that will cause drag that will lower rpm BUT increase torque. You know. When you increase rpm you decrease torque that pulls less drag that produces less amps output. All this is very standard EE. So once you have found that greatest balance of standard components, then you can start playing the control but before then, don't put one more minute on any mismatched toys. All your time is precious so choose well from the start. I have come to realize that most experiments are already checkmated by the low level of consideration given too component matching. Could say more if interested.

Last point on the act of replicating. Don't. Why would you want to replicate the same undisclosed methods and mistakes of the past because they promise something extra? Is your present intellect not good enough to tackle the puzzle of OU. @Erfinder says "replicate". hahaha. It's like saying "Flunk like the last guy". You have grown your brain for the challenges of today and not to replicate the errors of the past. In most cases, you can do mind experiments or small sectional bench experiments to test past notions without going through the tedious task of precise replication of something that has NEVER been proven to be OU.

Last last point. There is one force available to all that requires nothing electric, magnetic, electronic, inductive, capacitive, reactive, etc. It's called mechanical leverage and if you are smart about using leverage to your advantage this will bring you 1/2 to 3/4 of the way to OU. In terms of leverage, a dc motor sharing its shaft with a flywheel and a generator wheel is the worst mix possible even in Bedinis time, regardless of the control method then required to make up for the drag on the generator wheel exterior that will push back tenfold on the dc motor shaft. Sooooooooooooo........ You all should know enough by know about all these subjects that you should be able to work your mind bench at full width of effects so that all you will ever want to build is your own eureka moment device. Then you can post it before you build and ask for devils advocates to cut it down. If they can, then either modify it or dump it. Go to the next eureka idea and the next  until all sides of effects are first considered and worked out in the mind before you deploy it on a build. Imagine how much terrain you will cover in the same time frame.

No leverage, no drag, no output.

wattsup
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 16, 2017, 09:00:16 PM
The Rotor.   :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2017, 10:54:23 PM
A continuous output of 12 kW for ten minutes, eh? At 120 volts, that would require a current of 100 amps. I'd like to see the wiring and connectors of this machine, and the load bank used to demonstrate it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 16, 2017, 10:59:16 PM
Quote from: wattsup
...if you are smart about using leverage to your advantage this will bring you 1/2 to 3/4 of the way to OU.

Wattsie, today's "ordinary" COTS motors and generators are already 80 to 90 percent of the way to OU. If we combine that with a lever system that gets us 3/4 of the way to OU... we have 0.9 x 0.75 = 0.675 of the way to OU !! 

(Corrected misattribution, sorry about that  :-[   )
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 16, 2017, 11:19:22 PM
Nice rotor Grum.  ;D

Tk, which post are you quoting me from?

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 16, 2017, 11:22:19 PM
A continuous output of 12 kW for ten minutes, eh? At 120 volts, that would require a current of 100 amps. I'd like to see the wiring and connectors of this machine, and the load bank used to demonstrate it.

Hi TK. I don't know where they got that 12 kW figure from, but from a picture of the large device
it appears it only had the generator on it that was used to charge up the cap bank which was
used to pulse the batteries. There was no mention of what if any load was connected during the
10 minute demonstration, and whether mechanical or electrical.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 04:39:18 AM

Quote from: Mags
<blockquote>...if you are smart about using leverage to your advantage this will bring you 1/2 to 3/4 of the way to OU.</blockquote>

Magsie, today's "ordinary" COTS motors and generators are already 80 to 90 percent of the way to OU. If we combine that with a lever system that gets us 3/4 of the way to OU... we have 0.9 x 0.75 = 0.675 of the way to OU !!



Again, which post are you quoting me from Alsetalokin??

This is how I will refer to you from here on in. ;)

Magsie ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 17, 2017, 05:01:26 AM


Again, which post are you quoting me from Alsetalokin??

This is how I will refer to you from here on in. ;)

Magsie ;)

Perhaps just a mix up between you and wattsup Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 17, 2017, 05:06:41 AM
The Rotor.   :)

That was fast Grum lol.

Now we have all the specs,there cant be any argument about it not being an exact replication.

Trying to find soft iron bolts is turning out to be a challenge.
Soft steel -no problem. Soft iron-big problem.
May have to make some from some soft iron rod.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 05:20:51 AM
Perhaps just a mix up between you and wattsup Mags

Perhaps.

Perhaps Alsetalokin should do quotes like regular folk so others or the quotee can refer to it directly and not have to go back through 10 pages to see where it came from.

Perhaps if he had done so then he wouldnt have per happenstance had thought it was my words before posting

Perhaps he doesnt have to follow MileHigh in pm and refer to me a Magsie as MH calls me there all the time and just today again.

Perhaps it might seem odd that I would say such a quote when I have stated quite a few times in recent months that I am aware of motors and speakers and other things that are 90% eff and better to 100% eff.

Perhaps.

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 05:33:02 AM
Hi TK. I don't know where they got that 12 kW figure from, but from a picture of the large device
it appears it only had the generator on it that was used to charge up the cap bank which was
used to pulse the batteries. There was no mention of what if any load was connected during the
10 minute demonstration, and whether mechanical or electrical.

All the best...

Perhaps 12kv is much more believable figure than 12kw. 

It should be a lot easier to figure out how to get 12kv from the machine you see than 12kw. ;)

Set the whole bedini machine next to a 12kw motor or gen. What would you think then?

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 05:38:52 AM
Perhaps.

Perhaps Alsetalokin should do quotes like regular folk so others or the quotee can refer to it directly and not have to go back through 10 pages to see where it came from.

Perhaps if he had done so then he wouldnt have per happenstance had thought it was my words before posting

Perhaps he doesnt have to follow MileHigh in pm and refer to me a Magsie as MH calls me there all the time and just today again.

Perhaps it might seem odd that I would say such a quote when I have stated quite a few times in recent months that I am aware of motors and speakers and other things that are 90% eff and better to 100% eff.

Perhaps.

Mags

Sorreeeeeee. Yes, I got mixed up about who said what. Please accept my apologies. I corrected the offending post up above.

"You don't have to call me Waylon Jennings...."
--David Allan Coe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkKn5HrKgHQ
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 05:43:18 AM
That was fast Grum lol.

Now we have all the specs,there cant be any argument about it not being an exact replication.

Trying to find soft iron bolts is turning out to be a challenge.
Soft steel -no problem. Soft iron-big problem.
May have to make some from some soft iron rod.


Brad

But what thread will you put on them? What head? What grip length, what threaded portion? Matching soft iron nuts, or what? Do you know the thread spec of Bedini's soft iron bolts?  There's a big difference between M6 and 3/8-16. Or hex head vs. socket-head capscrews. Etc.

Wrong thread or head = inexact replication. Therefore doomed to fail.

Right?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 05:44:58 AM
Ok then.

But perhaps......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoYsfbq3vMc

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 05:50:16 AM
Perhaps 12kv is much more believable figure than 12kw. 

It should be a lot easier to figure out how to get 12kv from the machine you see than 12kw. ;)

Set the whole bedini machine next to a 12kw motor or gen. What would you think then?

Mags

Perhaps it is. But then it becomes much less remarkable, no? After all I can produce 12 kV with a device the size of a golf ball or even smaller. And a big heavy "energizer" machine with most of that in the flywheel weight should certainly have no problem making 12 kV for ten minutes without running down the batteries or even producing a noticeable decrease in flywheel speed. 

So does the remarkable claim for the Big Bedini just boil down to a typo, where some reporter mistakenly put 12 kW when actually should have put 12 kV?

I mean, people do make mistakes now and then, don't they Wa...er... Mags?

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 05:52:03 AM
But what thread will you put on them? What head? What grip length, what threaded portion? Matching soft iron nuts, or what? Do you know the thread spec of Bedini's soft iron bolts?  There's a big difference between M6 and 3/8-16. Or hex head vs. socket-head capscrews. Etc.

Wrong thread or head = inexact replication. Therefore doomed to fail.

Right?

Perhaps you should try a bunch of different ones and see if there is a difference.  ;)

Perhaps your post is just a knock on me and my thorough replication posts and there actually wouldnt be much if any noticeable differences that would matter. ;)

Whatever Al

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 06:05:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d8PHDG4yE

Seriously, the issue of how "exact" to get during a replication is a gnarly one. The persons skilled in the art should be able to tell what is truly important and what is not, or would be interested in finding out through experiment as you suggest. Soft iron bolts? Right there one becomes suspicious because a soft iron bolt is about as useful as spaghetti suspenders or a jello frisbee. But OK, we've all encountered less-than-Grade 3 crap that breaks or strips when you put any torque on it. And how could thread pitch possibly matter, one asks oneself. But you can bet your bippy that, should TinMan's or anyone else's "exact replication" fail to perform as claimed, someone from the Church of Bedini will claim that the replication wasn't exact enough. We've all seen this happen many times. Even though those claimants and complainants cannot do it themselves, they still think they can tell other people how to do it.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 07:07:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d8PHDG4yE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d8PHDG4yE)

Seriously, the issue of how "exact" to get during a replication is a gnarly one. The persons skilled in the art should be able to tell what is truly important and what is not, or would be interested in finding out through experiment as you suggest. Soft iron bolts? Right there one becomes suspicious because a soft iron bolt is about as useful as spaghetti suspenders or a jello frisbee. But OK, we've all encountered less-than-Grade 3 crap that breaks or strips when you put any torque on it. And how could thread pitch possibly matter, one asks oneself. But you can bet your bippy that, should TinMan's or anyone else's "exact replication" fail to perform as claimed, someone from the Church of Bedini will claim that the replication wasn't exact enough. We've all seen this happen many times. Even though those claimants and complainants cannot do it themselves, they still think they can tell other people how to do it.


"But you can bet your bippy that, should TinMan's or anyone else's "exact replication" fail to perform as claimed, someone from the Church of Bedini will claim that the replication wasn't exact enough."

Ok, well lets just stick to the subject of should it fail to perform. ::)

What if someone does it straight up and it does not fail?
 
Do you think that the builders should veer from trying to be as 'close as possible'? Is that a good strategy?

Mags


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 17, 2017, 07:27:02 AM
Well, now we are back to my question up above, which you seem to have ignored or misinterpreted. What if someone had access to several actual devices built by and under the supervision of Bedini himself, and they don't turn out to work as Bedini and his acolytes claimed? Here there is no issue about whether or not the "replications" are exact enough, because the great JB advised, built and signed off on them himself. Do these things only work when operated by Bedini himself? Well I guess we are "SOOL" then.

And if the results claimed by Bedini and his disciples DO show up in someone's replication, then is the time for experiments to begin, to see what is the cause of those results. Are the artefacts of interpretation or measurement? Are they indications of real overunity performance? But first the results claimed need to be reproduced reliably, and so far that hasn't happened.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 17, 2017, 11:04:58 AM
Well, now we are back to my question up above, which you seem to have ignored or misinterpreted. What if someone had access to several actual devices built by and under the supervision of Bedini himself, and they don't turn out to work as Bedini and his acolytes claimed? Here there is no issue about whether or not the "replications" are exact enough, because the great JB advised, built and signed off on them himself. Do these things only work when operated by Bedini himself? Well I guess we are "SOOL" then.

And if the results claimed by Bedini and his disciples DO show up in someone's replication, then is the time for experiments to begin, to see what is the cause of those results. Are the artefacts of interpretation or measurement? Are they indications of real overunity performance? But first the results claimed need to be reproduced reliably, and so far that hasn't happened.

I didnt ignore it. I saw it before. Im not going to entertain a hypothetical based all on negatives. If I had a company and and you worked for me in this field and you talked like this all the time Id pull a Trump and 'Your Fired'! I would want people that are not indulging in the negative before things begin. I would want people that are excited and have a positive outlook about this work. Thats not you.  But, continue on. That was my hypothetical return. :P

Sorry Brad. Didnt mean to muddy it up here.

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 17, 2017, 03:16:00 PM
Wattsie, today's "ordinary" COTS motors and generators are already 80 to 90 percent of the way to OU. If we combine that with a lever system that gets us 3/4 of the way to OU... we have 0.9 x 0.75 = 0.675 of the way to OU !! 
(Corrected misattribution, sorry about that  :-[   )

@TinsieKoala

You can take those surface values to mean what you want. A motor may be 80% efficient at turning a fan but that same motor may be 40% efficient in turning a loaded OU device working against real drag. That's why I am saying that by properly using leverage in these builds it provides another input source for the electric forces. Besides you can have a 90% efficient motor or generator but still be 500% away from making anything OU with it.

@Grumage and @all

Nice wheel. So your wheel magnets have a lifting power of how many pounds? What are the dimensions of the magnets? The small center hole means you will mount it at the end of a shaft of what diameter? So this is a fixed six magnet wheel a fixed (x) magnet strength and a fixed (y) distance from axis.

So again I go back to my last post. Of the millions of possible combinations of magnet size, strength, wheel diameter, number of magnets, etc, can we maybe understand why you chose this fixed combination.

OK, then the next step is pick up coils or other means of coupling. The variables are tremendous and at any point in this choosing of your next fixed values, each future decision could either help or hinder the overall outcome. I am not trying to be a pessimist here. Just trying to outline in such works where we usually go wrong because the fact is taking assumptions as reality pushes each of us to build things in the way we do, each step we take closes off future variables until we are squeezed into a small range of possibilities and outcomes.

Where does an OUer really start the R&D process? Does it start at the drive motor? If the total device includes a drive motor then maybe that is the first place to stop and investigate. So you take any drive motor. You make a magnet wheel but now, instead of fixing a distance from axis you make a way of being able to change the distance from axis against a fixed iron core coil. The question is "With this drive motor is there an ideal magnet size, strength and distance from axis that will enable the particular drive motor to both cut through drag and maintain speed? If that first question is not answered by stand alone R&D then this just started on the wrong footing.

What I am trying to say without sounding pessimistic or negative to all efforts is this. With many people having the ability to do concerted R&D into OU, is it not better to divide the myriad of variables into smaller parts, investigate each part on its own before deciding how to put it all together in the best manner possible.

In a perfect world of multi effort R&D is it not better for one person to do one part of the investigation as completely as possible while another does another part and so on so all can learn from the smaller tests how the bigger picture can come together.

So should the magnet wheel be produced first or only after one knows the loaded rpm of the drive motor and the desired frequency of the output that will be fed back to the drive motor as a loop? Or do you start with the pick up coil variables finding out what rpm and frequency will produce the desired output and amperage, to then know which drive motor and how to build the magnet wheel? What comes first? There has to be a logical method of R&D or any of these factors just "guessed" will change the totality of the outcome and become more of a lottery draw then a well thought out process.

I am convinced that with multiple talents on this forum, if all could be coordinated into one major effort, the growth of knowledge towards cause/effect would be tremendous, instead of this solo, slap together whatever and try it out however method that never works and leaves you with more questions then answers. I mean, are most of you not tired of these circular dead end results?

I can expand on what is required if guys want to embark on a real R&D mission which should always be first to learn and then discover the small nuances before you can master their combining forces and from the looks of it, many here already have the base prerequisites and wherewithal. Just remains to be seen if people can really work together and commit to one cause.

wattsup
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 17, 2017, 04:26:16 PM
Now we have all the specs, there cant be any argument about it not being an exact replication.

Trying to find soft iron bolts is turning out to be a challenge.
Soft steel -no problem. Soft iron-big problem.
May have to make some from some soft iron rod.

Hi Brad. Bedini used to recommend using a certain type of welding rod for the coil cores:
https://energy-tesla.com/john-bedini-monopole-generators/
"For the coil, just use an old solder roll or a bobbin you get wire on, cut and fill the center hole with .030 welding rod . This works really well."

Some people have mentioned R45 or R60 welding rods, but in 2010 Bedini mentioned the following:
http://www.energeticforum.com/122754-post623.html
"Also the welding rods have changed from the time I first started using them, the iron retains a magnetic bias in the new material, not good."

Bedini also mentions in this same comment that he never uses neo magnets as they can saturate the core if they are too strong.
I am not sure if that also applies to this type of energizer setup as well however:
"I will state this again I never use Neo magnets with these motors because they do saturate the cores I do not want that at all. If you saturate the core then you must use a lot of current in the system I do not want that either."
This might only apply to a different Bedini setup, such as Bedini's monopole trifilar wound generator.
Neo magnets might be fine in this type of setup.

I have seen some people in the past mentioning using 'iron garden wire' to make soft iron cores, 
but I am not sure if it is suitable. For example, I think they may mean this type of wire:
https://www.amazon.com/Garden-Heavy-Green-Coated-Training/dp/B00VKMIGMQ/

Otherwise soft iron rod may be suitable if you can find some.
However, Lindemann stated that Jim Watson used 'steel bolts' for his coil cores in both
of his machines, so, if that is accurate, then it may not be that critical.


All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 17, 2017, 04:38:10 PM
Dear wattsup.

For me personally the use of the @ symbol I find mildly offensive. Grumage, Grum or just plain Graham will do nicely.   :)

To answer your initial questions the rotor made from Polycarbonate measures 168 mm diameter and is
9.5 mm thick. The centre hole is 8 mm. I’m intending to use a 10 mm diameter Silver Steel shaft with the end turned down to suit the disc. I have a pair of 6000 C3 bearings to support the assembly.

The magnets are old Neodymium measuring 15 mm by 4 mm and can just hold 900 grams of Steel billet.

More information to come as my build progresses.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 17, 2017, 05:10:05 PM
For me personally the use of the @ symbol I find mildly offensive. Grumage, Grum or just plain Graham will do nicely.   :)

Hi Grumage. Some people put the '@' symbol in front of a name to help draw attention that this portion of the
comment is directed to a specific person. There is nothing offensive intended when people use the '@' symbol
like that. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 17, 2017, 05:23:44 PM
Hi Grumage. Some people put the '@' symbol in front of a name to help draw attention that this portion of the
comment is directed to a specific person. There is nothing offensive intended when people use the '@' symbol
like that. :)

Dear Void.

Well perhaps it’s my age or just plain old fashioned, I don’t particularly like it. My problem, I guess.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 17, 2017, 05:42:59 PM
I wonder if transformer laminates are more appropriate (as I have many of them).
I also salvaged an electric screwdriver and took out its 18V 1800RPM motor. I'll report its performance even I have spotted an old AC universal one. Looks like it can be converted for dc input operation. 

My question guys is what are you going to use as for the heavy iron disk? Is anything other except of a car that can be salvaged??
 

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 17, 2017, 06:17:49 PM
Hi Jeg.

This is one of the areas of conjecture, I’m rather lucky as I have many different cast Iron flywheels to choose from. But what size/weight, 20 Lbs is quite a mass? Are we looking to just carry the drive motor over the off period of the commutator? Would 14 Lbs be ok?

Now whilst we’re in “ contemplation mode “  :)

How many previous tinkerers actually used a “ wet “ Lead acid battery for the device. I know I didn’t. Could there be a difference at the “ Ionic “ level? It’s the Ionic reversal that was supposed to be the MO according to what I’ve read.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 17, 2017, 08:09:18 PM
Hi Jeg.
This is one of the areas of conjecture, I’m rather lucky as I have many different cast Iron flywheels to choose from. But what size/weight, 20 Lbs is quite a mass? Are we looking to just carry the drive motor over the off period of the commutator? Would 14 Lbs be ok?
Now whilst we’re in “ contemplation mode “  :)
How many previous tinkerers actually used a “ wet “ Lead acid battery for the device. I know I didn’t. Could there be a difference at the “ Ionic “ level? It’s the Ionic reversal that was supposed to be the MO according to what I’ve read.
Cheers Graham.

Hi Grumage, Jeg.  I have been reading up on it in the last week, and I don't recall coming across
anything where Bedini stated anything specific in regards to the flywheel size.  As near as I can
tell, you want a flywheel that is big enough to keep everything up to speed during the 'time windows'
where the motor is off and the cap bank is discharging into the battery. Whether there is any advantage
to having an even larger flywheel can probably only be determined by experimentation at this point.
I have attached a blurry photo taken from 'Bedini's Free Energy Generator' 1984 PDF in case it helps. :)

Since Bedini seems to have indicated that his solid state battery pulsing chargers also have a
COP > 1, I am going to try to put these general battery pulsing principles that are used in various Bedini
setups to the test, since it is quite simple to setup. I have been wondering why Bedini spent so
many years on motor/generator setups rather than just focusing on pulsing batteries with simpler soild
state circuits. Maybe rotating a mass adds some 'gain' into the equation, or maybe there are other reasons,
but I haven't come across anything specific yet as to why Bedini focused so much on motor/generators.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 17, 2017, 08:59:30 PM
Void, Grum
Thanks for the help, just to mention that in flywheels diameter comes first and weight is after as of an importancy.
In the meanwhile, I found a good source for cheap rotors of many different sizes.

 https://www.google.gr/search?q=cutting+wheels&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9-cuuscbXAhWEvRoKHcfeCUMQ_AUICigB&biw=1093&bih=602&dpr=1.25
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on November 17, 2017, 08:59:58 PM
I wonder if transformer laminates are more appropriate (as I have many of them).
I also salvaged an electric screwdriver and took out its 18V 1800RPM motor. I'll report its performance even I have spotted an old AC universal one. Looks like it can be converted for dc input operation. 

My question guys is what are you going to use as for the heavy iron disk? Is anything other except of a car that can be salvaged??

Hi Jeg,

Universal means the motor can run on either AC or DC.  There is no conversion needed.

Depending on how big you want the flywheel to be you can probably salvage one from a small engine like from a lawn and garden tractor.  This should give you something in the range of 20 t0 30 pounds depending on the size of the engine.  Check your local small engine repair shops.  They will probably give you a few to experiment with as they usually have several dozen junk engines laying around.

Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 17, 2017, 09:10:38 PM
 Cool Carol thanks!!! I'll search for it probably tomorrow.

About the motor i was thinking to open it and connect the field coils in series. Do you think that they are already in series? First build with motors and have some difficulties to locate and gather everything.

About the flywheel again I see two options. First is to mount the flywheel on the same axis as the rotor. But I don't feel safe when thinking a mass of that size to rotate so fast. Second option is to mount it in separate axis and divide the rotations number, but more complicated. What is your opinion on this?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 17, 2017, 10:18:55 PM
I have been wondering why Bedini spent so
many years on motor/generator setups rather than just focusing on pulsing batteries with simpler soild
state circuits. Maybe rotating a mass adds some 'gain' into the equation, or maybe there are other reasons,
but I haven't come across anything specific yet as to why Bedini focused so much on motor/generators.

Never played with Bedini ideas. What triggered me with this replication is that it combines  many forms of energy, and looks possible to transform them in a constructive way so to counteract the Lenz effect.           
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 17, 2017, 11:19:48 PM
Never played with Bedini ideas. What triggered me with this replication is that it combines  many forms of energy, and looks possible to transform them in a constructive way so to counteract the Lenz effect.         

Hi Jeg. Yes, battery pulse charging aside, it would seem that there still has to be something quite unusual
going on to charge up a fairly large cap bank to a fairly high voltage in a short enough amount of time
without consuming too much power to do it. I guess that may be why a motor and flywheel
and special energizer combination is used, and may well be why John Bedini spent so much time
experimenting with that kind of setup.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 18, 2017, 12:12:27 AM
In case this is of use to anyone here, I did a quick test to see what the
current waveform looks like when discharging a 5300uF (3300uF + 2000uf)
cap bank charged to 24V into a small 12V 5AH Sealed Lead Acid (SLA) battery.

I wanted to see what kind of current spike waveform I get from that arrangement.
I used a clamp current probe over the wire to measure the current waveform.
My SLA battery was sitting at about 13.1V. I just used some test leads to connect
things together in this quick test setup, so there is probably a little extra
resistance in there skewing the results a bit. With thicker wires and everything
connected really solidly, the current might well peak a little higher and be of a
shorter duration.

A 5300uF cap bank charged to 24V = 1.5 Joules
When it is discharged to 13.1V, it has 0.455 Joules remaining in it.
That means that for each discharge of the cap at 24V into the battery, about
1 Joule of energy will get transferred into the battery. How much of that 1 Joule of
energy the battery can actually absorb with each discharge pulse is another matter...

It looks like the cap discharge current pulse peaked at about 17.4A, and the
current pulse lasted about 10ms. Not sure why the current pulse was squared
off a bit at the top. I think this should be a close enough representation though.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 18, 2017, 01:36:23 PM
In case this is of use to anyone here, I did a quick test to see what the
current waveform looks like when discharging a 5300uF (3300uF + 2000uf)
cap bank charged to 24V into a small 12V 5AH Sealed Lead Acid (SLA) battery.

I wanted to see what kind of current spike waveform I get from that arrangement.
I used a clamp current probe over the wire to measure the current waveform.
My SLA battery was sitting at about 13.1V. I just used some test leads to connect
things together in this quick test setup, so there is probably a little extra
resistance in there skewing the results a bit. With thicker wires and everything
connected really solidly, the current might well peak a little higher and be of a
shorter duration.

A 5300uF cap bank charged to 24V = 1.5 Joules
When it is discharged to 13.1V, it has 0.455 Joules remaining in it.
That means that for each discharge of the cap at 24V into the battery, about
1 Joule of energy will get transferred into the battery. How much of that 1 Joule of
energy the battery can actually absorb with each discharge pulse is another matter...

It looks like the cap discharge current pulse peaked at about 17.4A, and the
current pulse lasted about 10ms. Not sure why the current pulse was squared
off a bit at the top. I think this should be a close enough representation though.

Thanks for doing that test Void--much appreciated
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on November 18, 2017, 02:01:39 PM
I think the point I've been trying to make is that virtually all replications will still allow the excuse of "not exact enough" when/if they are found not to meet the OU claims of the originator.
But if someone can get their hands on an original unit, that once was claimed to be OU by the Builder Himself, even that might not remove all possibility of the "not close enough" excuse -- as local conditions may vary, or any of a number of other factors not directly associated with the build itself.


Void, that little flat spot has me thinking. Could it be an artefact of the probe you used? Out of range, signal truncation? I wonder if a good noninductive CSR would show the same flat top. It might be interesting to try both your current probe and a CSR on the same pulse.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on November 18, 2017, 04:02:32 PM
Thanks for the jokes fellers  ;D

Who is going to hand in a working device ? it just won't happen, not to mention the problems to the system and the relief of the earth environmental change and then there is greed.

Lets make a start eh! with word, what word 'electric' or 'electricity' oh we keep coming back to the word, what word ?

This word is 'ELECTRON' and what it produces and what does it produce ?  MAGNETISM and what does that do ? slows everything down to the speed of light.

What happens if you dump the electron, what have you got ?

come on !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 18, 2017, 04:03:29 PM
Looks to me that battery presents some resistance for this very brief period, which eventually breaks down. 
Dirt at the conducts or an internal battery's characteristic?

And it is also this stair like decay if you zoom at the picture. Except if Void changed V/div after waveform's capture.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: web000x on November 18, 2017, 07:22:14 PM
I think the point I've been trying to make is that virtually all replications will still allow the excuse of "not exact enough" when/if they are found not to meet the OU claims of the originator.
But if someone can get their hands on an original unit, that once was claimed to be OU by the Builder Himself, even that might not remove all possibility of the "not close enough" excuse -- as local conditions may vary, or any of a number of other factors not directly associated with the build itself.


Void, that little flat spot has me thinking. Could it be an artefact of the probe you used? Out of range, signal truncation? I wonder if a good noninductive CSR would show the same flat top. It might be interesting to try both your current probe and a CSR on the same pulse.


I have only loosely been following this thread but haven’t seen much focus on the actual Jim Watson device as blueprints for building.  It would seem that if that device was the one that caught the attention of so many people, that we should look at its clues.  Has anyone got their sights set on an energizer which uses an unequal number of magnets to coils?  You can see in the photos of the Watson machine that the magnets don’t line up perfectly with the coils and that there is an unequal offset between the two..


Just thinking out loud and am curious if anyone is replicating in this direction..


Thanks,


Dave
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 18, 2017, 09:14:27 PM
Void, that little flat spot has me thinking. Could it be an artefact of the probe you used? Out of range, signal truncation? I wonder if a good noninductive CSR would show the same flat top. It might be interesting to try both your current probe and a CSR on the same pulse.

Hi TK. Yes, I had thought that the squared off peak might just be due to my not so
very good quality current probe. :)  I was avoiding using a CSR because even with a
CSR value of 0.22 ohms and with the current pulse peaking at around 18A, that would
be a voltage drop across the CSR of about 4V. Also, the increased resistance will increase
the cap discharge time constant, making the cap discharge time take a fair bit longer. 

I repeated the test with a 0.22 Ohm nominal resistor (lowest ohm value I have on hand) for the CSR,
and it doesn't square off the peak of the current pulse, so it looks like my cheapo current probe was doing that. :)
See the attached scope shot. It shows a peak of 2.66V across the 0.22 Ohm CSR, so 2.66V / 0.22 Ohms
equals 12.1A peak. I believe the current peak is lower than when using the current probe because of the
added resistance of 0.22 Ohms. Also the current pulse duration was quite a bit longer at a little over 17.5 ms,
which again would be due to the addition of the 0.22 Ohms increasing the cap discharge time constant.
It just goes to show that in a setup like this you want to use appropriate gauge wires and make sure all
wire connections are clean and solid to reduce resistive losses as much as possible.

I repeated the Cap discharge test using the same 5300 uF cap bank charged to about 24V, and
discharged into a much larger lawn tractor type 12V lead acid battery, and the current pulse waveform
using my current probe looks almost identical to the waveform when discharging into the smaller
5 AH SLA battery, so the capacity and size of the battery doesn't seem to affect the current discharge
pulse waveform too much in any noticeable way.

Looks to me that battery presents some resistance for this very brief period, which eventually breaks down. 
Dirt at the conducts or an internal battery's characteristic?
And it is also this stair like decay if you zoom at the picture. Except if Void changed V/div after waveform's capture.

Hi Jeg. It looks like the squared off peak and maybe some of that jagged look to the waveform is
due to my cheapo scope current probe. :) I didn't change the V/div on the scope after capturing
the waveform. That was how it came out. Part of the jagged appearance may also be due in part
to image rendering aliasing. The scope display is pretty low resolution.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on November 18, 2017, 09:44:08 PM
I used my current probe (green) in a similar way as described by Void together with a measurement with a 0.1 Ohm csr (yellow).

I have a 4000uF cap loaded to 25.8V and a 12V 7Ah battery reading 12.8V.
The cap at 25.8C contains a charge of 1.33J
After dump into the battery, it contains at 12.8V still 0.327J, so we dumped about 1J into the battery, like Void did.

My current probe (green) set at it max setting (5A/Div.) also showed the flat topping like in Voids screenshot, with some spikes before due to mr Hand making the connection see screenshot 1.
With the 0.1 Ohm non inductive csr (yellow), no flat topping was seen and a whopping 87.6A (8.76 / 0.1) was measured being dumped into the battery.

Using a 1 Ohm csr makes a lot of difference as it seems to limit the current being dumped, see screenshot 2
Now we have 12.6A being dumped via the csr (12.6 / 1) yellow trace and confirmed by the current probe green.


So i think the current probes are being overdriven or saturated.


Itsu


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 18, 2017, 10:21:27 PM
Hi Itsu. Thanks for doing that test. It is interesting that your current probe also
showed a squared off top on the current peak.  Strange that you measured such
a higher current peak than me using your 0.1 Ohm CSR, as your setup was similar
to my test setup. Maybe the test leads I was using have too much resistance and
that reduced the current peak quite a bit.

At any rate, it shows that even with a relatively smaller sized cap bank and charged only
to around 25V you should still expect quite large cap discharge peak currents, so if you
are using a relay to discharge the cap bank you may want one that has quite a high current
rating, like Tinman said he was going to try. If you are planning on using a commutator, then
keep in mind that the cap current discharge pulse could take up to 25 ms or possibly even longer,
depending on the resistance in commutator contacts and wiring connections.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 19, 2017, 01:25:15 AM
@Void (can't help myself @grum) (When I talk to any @member)

So, now maybe try the same thing with two then three batteries in series to equal the actual discharge voltage and more. See if there is a difference from your firsts.

wattsup
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 19, 2017, 05:46:53 AM
@Void (can't help myself @grum) (When I talk to any @member)

So, now maybe try the same thing with two then three batteries in series to equal the actual discharge voltage and more. See if there is a difference from your firsts.

wattsup


 ??? ??? ??? ???

If the batteries are in series and equal the discharge voltage, then there would be no discharge to show on the scope..   :o ??? ::)

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on November 19, 2017, 11:40:14 AM
Hi Itsu. Thanks for doing that test. It is interesting that your current probe also
showed a squared off top on the current peak.  Strange that you measured such
a higher current peak than me using your 0.1 Ohm CSR, as your setup was similar
to my test setup. Maybe the test leads I was using have too much resistance and
that reduced the current peak quite a bit.

At any rate, it shows that even with a relatively smaller sized cap bank and charged only
to around 25V you should still expect quite large cap discharge peak currents, so if you
are using a relay to discharge the cap bank you may want one that has quite a high current
rating, like Tinman said he was going to try. If you are planning on using a commutator, then
keep in mind that the cap current discharge pulse could take up to 25 ms or possibly even longer,
depending on the resistance in commutator contacts and wiring connections.

All the best...

I did use short (5cm) thick (2.5mm² stranded) wire with slip-on and ring lugs, so the resistance was minimal. 

At 0.1 Ohm csr, the current was much more then expected and more then the current probe can handle according to its specs:

Maximum continuous current AM503B: 20 A (DC + peak AC)
Maximum pulsed current 50A                   <---------------------------
Amp⋅second product 1x10-4 A⋅s (100 A⋅us)

Probably the "amp.second product" spec. limited it to the 25A seen on the screenshot before flattopping (disregarding the current spike at the very beginning of the pulse).

Anyway, minimum resistance is key in this setup i think and/or useable to limit / control the current going in the battery.

 
Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 20, 2017, 06:20:09 AM
Ok,some facts about Bedini's  actual energizer he had working on his bench-well what he claimed was working on his bench.

1-why all north out with the magnets?.

The answer is simple.
As it was required to draw current from the energizer only as the magnets were leaving the core of the coils, to achieve this,all the magnets poles must be the same at each coil.
There is no reason at all you could not have all south poles out on the rotor.
You cannot use alternating poles to achieve the required half wave rectification, where current is only drawn from the coils after the magnets are leaving the center of the coil cores.
For this reason, my rotor on my large energizer is no good for the replication.

2- the energizer diagram that has been posted a few times here,is not the energizer Bedini had working on his bench.

3- the effect that makes this machine work, has very little to do with the energizer it self.

4- no one !including Bedini him self!, has ever shown this device working as claimed.

5- continuous high current pulsing into batteries-kills the batteries.

6- Bedini's  working model,had no large flywheel.
The rotor carrying the magnets was also acting as the flywheel.


More to come soon.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on November 20, 2017, 11:08:19 AM

There is no reason at all you could not have all south poles out on the rotor.


Yes that is true.

For the records, Leedskalnin spoke about a difference only when magnets are in different level than the coil cores..

"...Cut a strip of a tin can about two inches wide and a foot long. Put the North Pole of the U shape magnet on top of the strip, and dip the lower end in iron filings, and see how much it lifts. Now put the South Pole on top and see how much it lifts. Change several times, then you will see that the North Pole lifts more than the South Pole Now put the North Pole magnet under the iron filing box, and see how much it pushes up. Now change. put South Pole magnet under the box and see how much it pushes up. Do this several times, then you will see that the South Pole magnet pushes up more than North Pole magnet.  This experiment shows again that on level ground the magnets are in equal strength. ..."   Ed. Leedskalnin
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 21, 2017, 05:27:00 AM
So,the energizer uses two effect to achieve the !claimed! self running machine.

1-the magneto is designed so as it is a high output,low drag generator.

This is achieved in two ways.
1-all the magnets poles have the same pole interacting with all the coils at the same time.
All coils are wound in the same direction,and are half wave rectified,so as current is drawn from the coils as the magnets are leaving the cores of the coils.
The claimed advantage to this is -the magnets can be pulled toward the cores without a magnetic field being produced by the coils,hat would push against the approaching magnets.
This !apparently! added mechanical energy to the system that is not provided by the motor.
Each coil also had a capacitor of the correct value placed across it,to form a tank circuit between coil and cap.

Second effect.

Lead acid batteries must be used in this device.
By pulse charging a LAB with high current pulses,it is claimed that both a magnetic and chemical reaction in the battery would offset any current drawn from the battery by the motor by more than 100%.
It is claimed that the ions in the battery are accelerated to a higher velocity by the high current pulses,than that of what the current draw by the motor would achieve.
The ions are of course flowing in the opposite direction during the high current pulses,to that of the direction they flow during motor on time,which causes the battery to charge at a higher rate than it is being discharged.

These are the claims by the inventer.

There will be those that think they know better,but they will also be the same people that have nothing to offer them self.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 21, 2017, 05:39:26 AM


There will be those that think they know better,but they will also be the same people that have nothing to offer them self.


Brad

Common Brad. Is poking jabs the intention of this post?  I mean like in the beginning you were so sure that the washing machine motor was a better bet. And you were claiming that the windings in the first depiction had rectifiers on the coils..  Gees man. ER is not in this thread any longer because you could not take the criticism that may have been a bit deserved, maybe? ???

So maybe we all just chill a bit.. 

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 21, 2017, 05:45:52 AM
I think you will be pleasantly surprised at some point in the future as to how much ER really does know about this stuff.

I will not elaborate more, but just chill on it a bit and look deeper. You just may see there are more things to this than are seemingly apparent. Im betting on it. Big time. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 21, 2017, 06:36:43 AM
Common Brad. Is poking jabs the intention of this post?  I mean like in the beginning you were so sure that the washing machine motor was a better bet. And you were claiming that the windings in the first depiction had rectifiers on the coils..  Gees man. ER is not in this thread any longer because you could not take the criticism that may have been a bit deserved, maybe? ???

So maybe we all just chill a bit..  d

Mags

After years of experimenting,i bet my left nut that the washing machine motor would make a far more efficient generator than that which Bedini used in his energizer.

If you wish to follow the nothingness that many here have,be my guest.

Regardless of what you think he may think he knows,i will be building the energizer to the specs stated by the inventer him self.

I think-like all those before you,you will be sadly dissapointed as to how much you !dont! get from Erfinder.

While he continues to put me down-as in your new thread,he will get the same back from me-end of story.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 21, 2017, 07:16:41 AM
After years of experimenting,i bet my left nut that the washing machine motor would make a far more efficient generator than that which Bedini used in his energizer.

If you wish to follow the nothingness that many here have,be my guest.

Regardless of what you think he may think he knows,i will be building the energizer to the specs stated by the inventer him self.

I think-like all those before you,you will be sadly dissapointed as to how much you !dont! get from Erfinder.

While he continues to put me down-as in your new thread,he will get the same back from me-end of story.


Brad

Lol   Dang.  Left nut aye?   ok and alrighty then.... How about this.....

You keep your nut and if someone shows that you are way off base with all of your statements above, that you leave this forum for good if it happens? Is that a bet you will take to heart and keep your nutsack intact??   ??? Not that I would like to see that happen really :'( , but Im just wondering if that is how serious you are with your statements.  Is that a bet you are willing to make for real? :-\

For me on all this, as I have said with TK that with soo much negative bias, and even more so by you here, Im thinking you are just putting it all together here for nothing. If you are so against the possibilities, why go through all the trouble to prove what you claim has been proven again and again that there is nothing good to find here? Why choose to even rehash it all? There doesnt seem to be even an inkling of possibility at all coming from you. Thats too bad.

So do you accept the new bet and keep your nuts???? ???

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 21, 2017, 07:20:30 AM
And if you accept, dont include me in this bet.  I didnt lay my nuts on the table. Wouldnt do that for anything in the world. Thats just 'nuts'.  lol

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 21, 2017, 07:37:20 AM
These are the claims by the inventer.

Hi Brad. What is the source of this new information on Bedini's setup?

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 21, 2017, 01:49:52 PM
 author=Magluvin link=topic=17491.msg513337#msg513337 date=1511245001]




I'll make it real simple for you Mag's,as it would seem that you want me gone.

You post a video-along with the full schematic and construction specifications,of a self running/self charging machine,that works as JB claims his dose,and i'll leave this forum the day some one replicates the device,and confirms that it works as claimed by the inventer(other than Erfinder)-->hows that for a deal  :D

Quote
For me on all this, as I have said with TK that with soo much negative bias, and even more so by you here, Im thinking you are just putting it all together here for nothing.

Nope.
Im putting it together for confirmation --one way or the other.
The negativity stems from the countless years of !books of bullshit!,where the Bedini group sell books on false pretenses==that being,it will show the buyer the way to make a free energy device--all the secrets are exposed.
Thats where the negativity comes from Mag's.

Quote
If you are so against the possibilities,

And just where did you get that from?

I think you are mixed up with-->i am against those that come into this thread,claiming that they know it all,but have nothing to show or share--those that claim that things are being done wrong,but cannot provide information as to how to do it right.

My replication will be as stated by the inventor,where clear instructions are given in the book the inventor wrote him self,on the very device being replicated here.

Quote
why go through all the trouble to prove what you claim has been proven again and again that there is nothing good to find here?

I love fishing Mag's.
I never catch anything,but i keep going,in the hope that next time,i will land the big one.

 
Quote
Why choose to even rehash it all? There doesnt seem to be even an inkling of possibility at all coming from you. Thats too bad.

Because i know first hand what can be achieved,and keep looking for an answer to one single question i have regarding one of my own machines--and one which you will be seeing some time in feb-march next year.

Quote
So do you accept the new bet and keep your nuts???? ???

I do,as long as you can provide what i asked for above.

The best way to prove me wrong,is to show what i say dose not exist  ;)
I will be more than happy to leave this forum Mag's,if thats what it takes to bring a free energy device to everyone here.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 21, 2017, 02:09:38 PM
Hi Brad. What is the source of this new information on Bedini's setup?

All the best...

It comes from JBs 1984 book,that is about this device,along with information referred by John from other papers.

Below is a couple of pics with JB and his actual energizers from the early 80's.
As you can see,it is nothing like the one in the schematic posted on this thread.

That schematic was one JB drew up for Jim Watson.
Jim made a few of his own changes,and that is the energizer Jim displayed at the International Tesla conference in Colorado Springs.

If you want to know a more indepth description of this high current pulse charging of lead acid batteries,then here is the link below.
Where as i gave a very basic description of this battery charging effect,this page go's more in depth to what is actually happening !apparently!.

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/battery%20poppers.htm


Brad

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 21, 2017, 02:11:22 PM
And if you accept, dont include me in this bet.  I didnt lay my nuts on the table. Wouldnt do that for anything in the world. Thats just 'nuts'.  lol

Mags

Im nearly 50--dont need me nuts any more :D

Gladly give one up ,so as everyone here could have there own free energy generator. ;)


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on November 21, 2017, 04:28:14 PM
Brad what you are saying is interesting not every one can develop a device from beginning to end and some guys other than your self are manager potential that's OK but this team don't need managers as we are not being paid or funded  ;)

Forum Devotees ;)
Some of the other forums don't know if you have noticed have ether a tram running on tram lines going an outer circle route or a rag and bone man with a blinkered horse doing the same thing but slower asking for any more circuits but the author get the same treatment.

So who will develop a device get it going on his own create his own thread publish it and give it away only to realize he has blown his own security and some other thread devotee doesn't like any humor you slip in and now has the world banging at his door with laymen can't be bothered to build it or fix it ect ect.

Allen
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 21, 2017, 05:27:24 PM
It comes from JBs 1984 book,that is about this device,along with information referred by John from other papers.
Below is a couple of pics with JB and his actual energizers from the early 80's.
As you can see,it is nothing like the one in the schematic posted on this thread.
That schematic was one JB drew up for Jim Watson.
Jim made a few of his own changes,and that is the energizer Jim displayed at the International Tesla conference in Colorado Springs.
If you want to know a more indepth description of this high current pulse charging of lead acid batteries,then here is the link below.
Where as i gave a very basic description of this battery charging effect,this page go's more in depth to what is actually happening !apparently!.
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/battery%20poppers.htm
Brad

Hi Brad. I had already read both JB's 1984 book and the info on Tom Bearden's site you referenced.
That's why I commented previously here that at least some of the claimed OU effect is supposed to be related to pulsing the battery
and some supposed effect of resonating the ion movement with the 'vacuum energy' or something like that, based on Tom Bearden's
theories. I was surprised that you said John's own 1984 setup described in his booklet didn't have a separate flywheel, as the picture
included in that JB 1984 booklet shows what appears to be a separate flywheel on JB's device. :) John experimented with a lot of different
setups, and many of his other setups didn't have a separate flywheel. It may not matter if the flywheel is separate
or part of the energizer rotor, if the energizer rotor has enough mass on its own to double as a flywheel.

I'll be interested to see how your JB 1984 device replication attempt performs.
All you can do is replicate as close as you can figure it was built by JB with the info that
is available.  John has mentioned using welding rods to make the soft iron cores in the past, so soft iron
wire or soft iron rod may work about the same. A person has to be practical in part choices otherwise they
may never be able to make any replication attempt. ;D It sounds like what you are constructing should be
reasonably close to what JB did in his 1984 device based on the info that is available.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on November 21, 2017, 10:51:15 PM
Yes John Badini RIP a very clever man one device he disclosed built and gave away and published goes unnoticed by
many but could change many lives if it was really developed and exploited.

Allen
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: shylo on November 21, 2017, 11:42:15 PM
get away from batteries, Their a waste of time and resources.
The spike won't run the system, it will help.
The only thing that will make it free , is if we use wind and solar.
But keep dreaming.
art v
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 21, 2017, 11:52:39 PM
Yes John Badini RIP a very clever man one device he disclosed built and gave away and published goes unnoticed by
many but could change many lives if it was really developed and exploited.
Allen

Why not simply state which specific device you are referring to then? ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 22, 2017, 12:19:21 AM
Hi Brad. I had already read both JB's 1984 book and the info on Tom Bearden's site you referenced.
That's why I commented previously here that at least some of the claimed OU effect is supposed to be related to pulsing the battery
and some supposed effect of resonating the ion movement with the 'vacuum energy' or something like that, based on Tom Bearden's
theories. I was surprised that you said John's own 1984 setup described in his booklet didn't have a separate flywheel, as the picture
included in that JB 1984 booklet shows what appears to be a separate flywheel on JB's device. :) John experimented with a lot of different
setups, and many of his other setups didn't have a separate flywheel. It may not matter if the flywheel is separate
or part of the energizer rotor, if the energizer rotor has enough mass on its own to double as a flywheel.

I'll be interested to see how your JB 1984 device replication attempt performs.
All you can do is replicate as close as you can figure it was built by JB with the info that
is available.  John has mentioned using welding rods to make the soft iron cores in the past, so soft iron
wire or soft iron rod may work about the same. A person has to be practical in part choices otherwise they
may never be able to make any replication attempt. ;D It sounds like what you are constructing should be
reasonably close to what JB did in his 1984 device based on the info that is available.

All the best...

Yes,one had a flywheel,and one used the heay rotor as the flywheel.

You will also notice that the one without a stand alone flywheel,had the coils placed around the circumference of the rotor,and not facing the face of the rotor as shown in the posted schematic.
Looks to be only 3 coils as well.

The solid soft iron cores are an issue for me,as they would not be as efficient as laminated steel cores-but we have to replicate as close as we can get to the original machine.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on November 22, 2017, 06:42:26 AM
yes JB's Radiant Oscillator ( an Oscillator that produces more out than put in) and can run on it's own steam, In one of his vids he said / quoted that he was threatened over the device. Strange how he produced a beefed up version just before he died.
It's on JB website and reference on google
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 22, 2017, 08:06:28 AM
author=Magluvin link=topic=17491.msg513337#msg513337 date=1511245001]




I'll make it real simple for you Mag's,as it would seem that you want me gone.

You post a video-along with the full schematic and construction specifications,of a self running/self charging machine,that works as JB claims his dose,and i'll leave this forum the day some one replicates the device,and confirms that it works as claimed by the inventer(other than Erfinder)-->hows that for a deal  :D

Nope.
Im putting it together for confirmation --one way or the other.
The negativity stems from the countless years of !books of bullshit!,where the Bedini group sell books on false pretenses==that being,it will show the buyer the way to make a free energy device--all the secrets are exposed.
Thats where the negativity comes from Mag's.

And just where did you get that from?

I think you are mixed up with-->i am against those that come into this thread,claiming that they know it all,but have nothing to show or share--those that claim that things are being done wrong,but cannot provide information as to how to do it right.

My replication will be as stated by the inventor,where clear instructions are given in the book the inventor wrote him self,on the very device being replicated here.

I love fishing Mag's.
I never catch anything,but i keep going,in the hope that next time,i will land the big one.

 
Because i know first hand what can be achieved,and keep looking for an answer to one single question i have regarding one of my own machines--and one which you will be seeing some time in feb-march next year.

I do,as long as you can provide what i asked for above.

The best way to prove me wrong,is to show what i say dose not exist  ;)
I will be more than happy to leave this forum Mag's,if thats what it takes to bring a free energy device to everyone here.


Brad

I had said much earlier that I would not reply here again. But Tk made reference to me so I had the right to reply. So beyond this post I will  NOT reply any further. AND, I simply had to reply to Wattsups post as it seems very odd what he implied, and he has yet to return to clarify.

When I made the alternative bet for you to keep your nut, it was just a way of saying here is a lighter alternative to mutilating yourself.  I meant what I said just as seriously as you were about your nut. I know you would not do it. And I did say in my post..."Not that I would like to see that happen really" so we can drop all bets as they will never happen either way.. So your statement of "I'll make it real simple for you Mag's,as it would seem that you want me gone" is not so.

It is clear that you do not believe you will ever see any good results from this Bedini build. For example....

"The negativity stems from the countless years of !books of bullshit!,where the Bedini group sell books on false pretenses==that being,it will show the buyer the way to make a free energy device--all the secrets are exposed.
Thats where the negativity comes from Mag's."

"The best way to prove me wrong,is to show what i say dose not exist"

"After years of experimenting,i bet my left nut that the washing machine motor would make a far more efficient generator than that which Bedini used in his energizer."

And those are from only from this recent page 15 alone let alone what you said earlier.


Then there is reply #207
"Ok,some facts about Bedini's  actual energizer he had working on his bench-well what he claimed was working on his bench......."

Well according to what you were first building here and saying all N out is not necessary or better than your washing machine motors NSNS config and "guessing" that there were rectifiers in the coils, etc, it is clear that you knew nothing about this bedini machine till you read the book here recently, yet you had and STILL have all these ideas and convictions of what you thought it was and just proceeded to apply what you thought was a better way of going about it.  As of late it is very clear you knew nothing much at all on this machine before you read the book. So your Bedini bashing has been based on what you have heard and seen from others and not by your own investigations on the subject to come to your own educated conclusions.


This is what ER had issues with and I do also.


Also from reply #207....  "1-why all north out with the magnets?. The answer is simple."

Yeah, sure.  But earlier before you read the book, how simple was it then? It was all nonsense according to you. ::)

Too many people, and even to say, too many smart and respectable people here, have all these preconceived notions and imagined ideas to put down things they clearly dont know anything about, of which this thread produces proofs of that, of which Im clarifying here in this post.


"I think-like all those before you,you will be sadly dissapointed as to how much you !dont! get from Erfinder."

Well right now I can say that this statement is only your opinion and far from the truth that I know right now. I will not divulge what I have learned from him as I have very high respect of him at this jucture. Very. He will disclose his years of clearly very great knowledge, way beyond many, in his own time. With your device on the shelf you refer to at times, and the arrogant claims you make of it and imply that it is special, and do not disclose how to build it or what the principles are that make it so special to the people here, you are showing you are in the same position he is in with what he knows. This is clearly hypocritical of you. And right here and now, I can say he would rock your world with just 1 of his discoveries let alone the many other ideas and discoveries he has made. At this point, compared to everything I have seen here over the years, he IS top gun. And I can say that without having to bet my nut because I know that I would never have to drop my pants to fill that bet.


My stance on replicators having positive initiatives towards OU still stands. That is what this site is 'suppose' to be all about.  And clearly by many of your statements here, you are only doing all this to prove Bedini was a complete fraud and not to actually see if there is something special to it.

Nuff said. Good luck in your endeavors, what ever they may be. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 22, 2017, 03:19:48 PM

Efficient how?  as in what do you see there function as?  as in what if they were not being used like a "normal" coil with core for induction.
Maybe they are part of a "magnetic" capacitor of some sort that allows the PM to move past the coil\core and get closer to the next coil\core before that "magnetic" capacitor is discharged out via the coil into the low resistance, low voltage battery??




The "normal" capacitor will be offering a high resistance,, so higher voltage lower current but maybe still able to hold an opposing field to the changing PM and maybe somehow holding the soft iron core "charged",,,,


Just rambling outside the box a little,,  looking at things from a backwards view so to say.  This way, however, the Energizer might also be a motor during the discharge pulse,, a pulse motor of sorts?????


I am referring to eddy current drag,where the solid soft iron core would have far more drag than a laminated steel core--this is why we use laminated cores today.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 22, 2017, 03:46:07 PM
 author=Magluvin link=topic=17491.msg513381#msg513381 date=1511334388]


Quote
I had said much earlier that I would not reply here again. But Tk made reference to me so I had the right to reply. So beyond this post I will  NOT reply any further. AND, I simply had to reply to Wattsups post as it seems very odd what he implied, and he has yet to return to clarify.

You are always welcome to post here Mag's--that has not changed.

Quote
Also from reply #207....  "1-why all north out with the magnets?. The answer is simple."

Yeah, sure.  But earlier before you read the book, how simple was it then? It was all nonsense according to you. ::)

The answer was simple Mag's.
It also clearly states in the same book,that alternators can be used to achieve the same effect.

Now,correct me if im wrong,but dont alternators produce an alternating current?..
Dose not my washing machine motor,when used as a generator, produce an alternating current?--is it then not an alternator?.

Quote
It is clear that you do not believe you will ever see any good results from this Bedini build.

Not true Mag's.
I told you i would give it my best,and as you have seen,i have corrected my mistakes as i go.
The more i find out,the more i will correct what i got wrong.
See next post.

Quote
"After years of experimenting,i bet my left nut that the washing machine motor would make a far more efficient generator than that which Bedini used in his energizer."

And i stand by that at this time.

Quote
Well according to what you were first building here and saying all N out is not necessary or better than your washing machine motors NSNS config and "guessing" that there were rectifiers in the coils, etc, it is clear that you knew nothing about this bedini machine till you read the book here recently, yet you had and STILL have all these ideas and convictions of what you thought it was and just proceeded to apply what you thought was a better way of going about it.  As of late it is very clear you knew nothing much at all on this machine before you read the book. So your Bedini bashing has been based on what you have heard and seen from others and not by your own investigations on the subject to come to your own educated conclusions.

Dose the diagram below not show a FWBR across the coil?
Dose it not say--John Bedini's 1984 energizer?

Quote
This is what ER had issues with and I do also.

Dont really care what Erfinder has issues with.

Quote
"I think-like all those before you,you will be sadly dissapointed as to how much you !dont! get from Erfinder."

I have spoken to many that came before you,and i think the only dissapointment was spending some much time,and getting nothing in the end.
Lets hope it is different for you.

Quote
Well right now I can say that this statement is only your opinion and far from the truth that I know right now. I will not divulge what I have learned from him as I have very high respect of him at this jucture. Very. He will disclose his years of clearly very great knowledge, way beyond many, in his own time.

It is the opinion of many others as well.
Erfinder and myself go wayyyy back.
Some things just never change.

Quote
With your device on the shelf you refer to at times, and the arrogant claims you make of it and imply that it is special, and do not disclose how to build it or what the principles are that make it so special to the people here, you are showing you are in the same position he is in with what he knows. This is clearly hypocritical of you.

Not at all.
I dont go to every thread,and tell people they are doing it wrong,just because i believe i am the only one that knows how to do it right.

Quote
And right here and now, I can say he would rock your world with just 1 of his discoveries let alone the many other ideas and discoveries he has made. At this point, compared to everything I have seen here over the years, he IS top gun. And I can say that without having to bet my nut because I know that I would never have to drop my pants to fill that bet.

Well,your on a winner then.
No need to bother with us simple folk here then.

Quote
My stance on replicators having positive initiatives towards OU still stands. That is what this site is 'suppose' to be all about.  And clearly by many of your statements here, you are only doing all this to prove Bedini was a complete fraud and not to actually see if there is something special to it.

Once again--you have me wrong.

I said i would give it my best shot,and i am doing just that--see next post.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 22, 2017, 03:49:24 PM
Well tonight i gave the pulse charging system a go,and went on the hunt for this high frequency oscillation that is suppose to be taking place within the battery.
It is suppose to be between 2.5 and 6MHz.

Well,it would seem that it is actually there   ;)-->scope shot 1
The scope ground and probe were directly across the battery terminals.

I am also quite supprised at how fast the battery charged using this high current pulse method.

The pulse current had a peak of 9.6amps-->very near 1 volt over .1 ohm CVR

The battery is a new 60 A/H battery--bought for the project.
The battery was pulled down to 12.1 volt's,using a car head lamp. Then i let it rest for 30 minute's,and it rose back up to 12.3v.
Using the pulse charger(which was running of my power supply,at a voltage of 15 volts,the battery was charged to 12.84 volts in 20 minutes. It was then left to rest for 1/2 hour,and settled at 12.76v

The calculated power of each cap discharge is around 510mJ
This was calculated using the scope shot below-scope shot 2.
The cap is a 15 000uF,50v cap.
The blue trace is across the cap,and yellow trace is across the battery.
The frequency is not 1KHz as indicated by the scope. I believe that is picking up the arcing of the contacts in the relay.
The cap dump relay is on for about 100ms,and the cap charge relay is on for about 200ms

Once again-->i have not seen a battery charge so fast,using so little power. :o

Graham--there may be something in this after all.  ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 22, 2017, 05:30:04 PM
Hi Brad. Looks like you are making good progress. By your 'pulse charging system' do you mean
your JB motor/generator setup? If you do, the DC motor may be producing EM noise that is getting
picked up by the scope probe across the battery, so that could be a possible source of the high frequency
pulses seen in your scope shot. Just something to consider as a possibility. I don't know what
your exact configuration was, so just throwing that out as something to consider.

All the best...


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 22, 2017, 06:09:38 PM


Graham--there may be something in this after all.  ;)

Hi Brad.

I'm very pleased to read that!

Just wound one coil this afternoon to find that at 200 turns it needs 70 grams of Copper wire. Just had to order a 500g spool.

A sneaky preview....

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on November 22, 2017, 10:28:26 PM
??? ??? ??? ???  If the batteries are in series and equal the discharge voltage, then there would be no discharge to show on the scope..   :o ??? ::)  Mags

@Mags

Yes but what was being discussed was based on one 24vdc discharge into a 12vdc battery. The only way to see the spread of such an effect is to make a comparison to see the same discharge under different scenarios. I would have also recommend discharging the same into a 6 and 18 volt battery as well just to cover a good enough range of variables. The point is regardless of the equal battery to discharge, it is too see it on the scope how it will translate those different events using the same discharge. That's the only way to learn if that is the object.

About magnets all north. Think of each copper and iron atom as having a nucleus similar to an internal Gyro-magnet with its North (GN) and South (GS). When the North (N) wheel magnet approaches from the left, the GS turns to it. The GS then follows the passage of the N magnet until the N magnet abandons the GS while it points to the right. When a next N magnet comes again from the left the process repeats itself. The GS does one "quick turn" and one "follow the passage" and that's what you see on the scope.

If you have alternating N and S magnets on the wheel when the S magnet first comes from the left the GN turns to it then follows the magnets passage so the magnet then abandons the GN on the right and by doing so leaves the GS pointing towards the left. But now an N magnet is approaching and the GS is already on the left so you get no turn action there, only the action of the GS following the N magnet passage. So in S and N magnet placements you will only pickup passage of the magnet and less the approach.

The greatest problem with a magnet passing a iron core with copper windings is that each wind is a loop. So when the magnet gets to the coil, the closest part of the wind reacts in one way while the furthest part of the loop reacts in the opposite where all together you generate more cancellation potential just because of the used topology.

Look at a car alternator. How can so few winds produce 12vdc at 100 amps? Because first of all only one side of each loop is near the rotor so the conveyance has less cancellation hence more output, making that stator load up so much that you need 5 to 6 HP to keep it going. The GS and GN in the atoms are so stressed that a majority are pushed into the opposing polarity that then does the same in the core itself where together they then create the drag ATTRACTION. Drag is excessive attraction. So how can that happen? The magnet did not change. The coil did so the question is how can you produce the same effect while lowering drag? It can only be done with new topologies.

I will post my opinion on replicating separate.

@tinman

Again, such battery charge tests can only be conclusive if you do the following.

1) Charge the battery using a standard battery charger at trickle charge until the charge indicates full charge.
2) Let the battery sit for 10 minutes then measure the voltage. Let's say it shows 13.2 volts.
3) Load the battery and count the time it takes for the voltage to lower to let's 11.5 volts. Don't ever let the battery get below 10.5 volts or you can damage it.
4) Do your own charging method until you arrive at the same 13.2 volts showing after a 10 minute waiting period.
5) Load the battery again and count the time it take for the battery to go back down to 11.5 volts.

If the second load lasts the same length of time or longer, great, if not, there is a problem in the theory of it all.

wattsup
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 23, 2017, 12:04:51 AM
Hi Brad. Looks like you are making good progress. By your 'pulse charging system' do you mean
your JB motor/generator setup? If you do, the DC motor may be producing EM noise that is getting
picked up by the scope probe across the battery, so that could be a possible source of the high frequency
pulses seen in your scope shot. Just something to consider as a possibility. I don't know what
your exact configuration was, so just throwing that out as something to consider.

All the best...

Hi Void.

As stated in my post,i was using my power supply,which is a smooth DC output,set at 15 volts to charge the cap.

Still working on the energizer.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 23, 2017, 12:57:30 AM
Hi Void.
As stated in my post,i was using my power supply,which is a smooth DC output,set at 15 volts to charge the cap.
Still working on the energizer.

Hi Brad. I was asking about what you meant by your 'pulse charger', but no worries... 
I thought maybe you meant you were driving the motor from your power supply. :D
I guess maybe you mean just your controller circuit connected to your relay.


Hi Grum: (I left the @ symbol off for you. :) ) It's looking good. :)


All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 23, 2017, 05:44:56 AM
[author=Void link=topic=17491.msg513407#msg513407 date=1511395050]
Hi Brad. I was asking about what you meant by your 'pulse charger', but no worries... 
I thought maybe you meant you were driving the motor from your power supply. :D
I guess maybe you mean just your controller circuit connected to your relay.
Quote
\


Ah,ok

Sorry,i should have been a little clearer.

But anyway,i was just driving the circuit ,and charging the cap with my PS,then dumping the cap into the battery-no motor or energizer at this stage.

As i was using mechanical relays,the arcing at the relay contacts may be what we are seeing.
But as the frequency is close to what Tom Bearden states,either it is in the battery it self,or they too were seeing the arc frequency across the battery.

But the battery charged quick,and after placing a good resistive load across it,it is clear that it was a good heavy charge,and not some surface charge.

Will be doing some further charge and load testing as i go along.


Brad


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 23, 2017, 07:48:37 AM
As i was using mechanical relays,the arcing at the relay contacts may be what we are seeing.
But as the frequency is close to what Tom Bearden states,either it is in the battery it self,or they too were seeing the arc frequency across the battery.
But the battery charged quick,and after placing a good resistive load across it,it is clear that it was a good heavy charge,and not some surface charge.
Will be doing some further charge and load testing as i go along.
Brad


Hi Brad. Yeah the arcing from the relay contacts would likely generate some spikey looking waveforms of some type, but that
should show in bursts right at the points where the relay switching occurs.
If that high frequency noise waveform you showed on your scope is coming from the battery, that would really be something. 
That's great that the cap pulsing put a good charge on the battery. That is a very good start. :)

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 23, 2017, 03:09:22 PM
the reference to recent "bets" here made me take another look at a Post On EF the other day

Quote

It is suggested by no less an authority than Andrija Puharich that are hero Tesla was also 'Nutless' perhaps to remove sexual 'urges' and so concentrate on his research ?
I often wonder if some readers and contributers to energetics I would be very happy to name might like to urgently consider the same procedure ? (in the interests of science)
https://vimeo.com/4935037
end Quote

I have removed the posters Name [since he removed the post ,but it was copied by another member]

careful with the bets...... :o
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on November 23, 2017, 03:16:14 PM
Watch this if you think its all crud !

But don't get up set by this guys first comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVD1dIGcmXk
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on November 23, 2017, 03:36:08 PM
the reference to recent "bets" here made me take another look at a Post On EF the other day

Quote

It is suggested by no less an authority than Andrija Puharich that are hero Tesla was also 'Nutless' perhaps to remove sexual 'urges' and so concentrate on his research ?
I often wonder if some readers and contributers to energetics I would be very happy to name might like to urgently consider the same procedure ? (in the interests of science)
https://vimeo.com/4935037
end Quote

I have removed the posters Name [since he removed the post ,but it was copied by another member]

careful with the bets...... :o
Hmm it's full of half truths and misleading doctored science facts, a bit of a time waster and would be better of placed in the bin  :-\ that's my opinion sorry.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 23, 2017, 05:20:57 PM
Watch this if you think its all crud !
But don't get up set by this guys first comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVD1dIGcmXk

Hi AG. Before he turned on the relay his battery was sitting at 13.13V, and
at the end when he turned off the relay switching his battery was reading 13.03V.  :)

In the video when the relay is operating, it is chattering away at a pretty high frequency, and
it is producing big switching spikes and arcing. This high frequency spikey noise it produces can make
digital voltmeters read incorrectly. :) Not sure if analog voltmeters will do a better job when subjected to
this kind of spikey noise, but they might. Notice in the video how the voltage on the digital voltmeter
is sometimes reading high and sometimes reading low while the relay is running. The green sparking he is talking
is almost certainly due to the metal in the relay contacts. His contacts looked like brass or similar. I have noticed that
metal with copper in it tends to produce greenish colored sparks.

As soon as you disconnect the battery from the source of this kind of spikey noise (disconnect the relay in this case)
the digital voltmeter can show quite a different voltage reading. The guy said that if he leaves the battery sitting for a long time
its unloaded terminal voltage comes back up to around where he started from, but anyone experienced working with
batteries knows that a battery's unloaded terminal rest voltage can be quite misleading as to what the actual charge is on the battery.

In the video he was using a large capacity battery, and if his relay switching is not drawing too much current, a short run of even
an hour may not discharge the battery very much. This is why I suggested earlier on in this thread that you should probably run these
battery self charging circuits for a day or two steady, and then test to see what the charge is on the battery. A way I test the charge
on batteries is to connect my battery trickle charger to the battery and see how long it takes before the charger indicates the
battery is charged. That is maybe not completely reliable, but it seems to work fairly reliably in determining the true charge on
a battery. The longer the trickle charger takes to charge up the battery, the more the battery was discharged.

I have experimented a fair bit with driving spark gap circuits using a 12V lead acid battery, and I have seen the same thing where
the digital voltmeter doesn't show the battery voltage dropping, but as soon as I turn off the circuit the voltmeter often shows
a lower battery voltage reading. However, in some cases of shorter runs with the sparkgap circuits, after I finished, the battery
did seem to rebound back, and when I put it on the battery trickle charger it showed the battery was fully charged. This was
for shorter runs however. This is why I think you really have to do tests for longer periods of times like at least 24 hours to see
if the battery can really maintain a true charge. Those spikey high frequency high voltage waveforms produced by arcing may
actually put some sort of 'surface charge' on a battery in come cases, but it may well not hold up for much longer runs.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on November 24, 2017, 01:40:00 AM
Hi AG. Before he turned on the relay his battery was sitting at 13.13V, and
at the end when he turned off the relay switching his battery was reading 13.03V.  :)

All the best...
Yes as the guy puts pressure on the contacts he is ether drawing out the on time or the off time and the frequency goes up where the gain goes in voltage goes up or appears to. Another video of Nelson Rocha does the same sort thing but he has a resister and a capacitor in the coil energizing circuit and a cable tie adding pressure to the coil contacts to alter the wave form.

Nelson's site  >  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thFuT4FaLdk

and   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjK6OlYO9Aw

You tube says Nelson has 70 vids
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hoptoad on November 24, 2017, 04:13:49 AM
Digital meters are notorious for showing incorrect readings when using any circuit involving sparking.
To see more accurate measurements in real time, if you don't have quality scopes, use an analogue meter instead.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on November 24, 2017, 02:35:02 PM
Coils wound,and rotor predrilled.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on November 24, 2017, 03:42:39 PM
I hope you not going to do what I think you are with those coils are you  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ?

Cus I hope your going to have a fly wheel with a magnet through the fly wheel with N on one side and  S on the other and a split coils out of phase on each side to cancel out the drag effect are you  or not or it will have drag losses lenu's law stuff ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ?

I have some fly wheels some one turned for me but it needs some way to mount through magnets in them or on them if you get my drift' ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 25, 2017, 09:24:42 PM
How NOT to make a commutator....

LH, poor moulding method caused a shrink in the resin going below the Coppers edge.

RH, The Copper failed to adhere to the resin and moved during the machining operation.

Number 3 is curing as I post....

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 25, 2017, 10:15:48 PM
How NOT to make a commutator....
LH, poor moulding method caused a shrink in the resin going below the Coppers edge.
RH, The Copper failed to adhere to the resin and moved during the machining operation.
Number 3 is curing as I post....
Cheers Graham.

Hi Grum. Very innovative. Too bad the first two had issues. Hopefully the third time
is a charm. :)


@Brad, the coils and rotor are looking good.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 26, 2017, 04:33:35 PM
Hi Void.

Sadly, not to be....

The resin shattered during machining possibly due to us having a heavy frost last night. Yet another curing as I post.

Six coils to wind, the kitchen table preferable to the un heated workshop.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Magluvin on November 26, 2017, 05:10:36 PM
Hi Void.

Sadly, not to be....

The resin shattered during machining possibly due to us having a heavy frost last night. Yet another curing as I post.

Six coils to wind, the kitchen table preferable to the un heated workshop.

Cheers Graham.

Hey grum

Its better to not put so much hardener and let cure till the next day. Will have less shrinkage.  Also if you have a supplier for marine near by try surf board resin. less shrinkage. and Im not sure what you mean by machining, but if its a lathe its will be better if you us a sanding block to whittle it down. Coarse to get it close then fine to get it smooth. If you can water sand it on the lathe it will help prevent build up on the paper. Just some tips.  The surf board resin is close to glass clear when cured.

mags
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 26, 2017, 07:29:05 PM
Hey mags.

Thanks for the advice. Chet also mentioned the nature of this kind of resin via Skype, just now.

Well despite a minor crack the assembly has just passed a 5000 + RPM speed using my bench power supply consuming under 80 Watts. I had to replace the motor shown in an earlier photo, smoked it!!

The new motor is an old school field wound series connected unit and uses around 8 Watts @ 2000 RPM.

Brushgear to follow....

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 26, 2017, 09:49:25 PM
It's alive!

 :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on November 26, 2017, 11:33:09 PM
It's alive!
 :)

Looking good Grum!

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on November 28, 2017, 09:36:59 PM
Some forward progress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmjGtZM21YM

Now the REAL work begins.  :)

Hmm.... my 1000th post, an omen??

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: shylo on November 28, 2017, 11:21:26 PM
Hi Grum,
Beautiful work , wire your coils so you have three seperate machines.
Offset their fields, and you can use the spikes to work with the seperate fields.
Sorry I'm not very good with words.
Thanks art v
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 02, 2017, 11:06:53 PM
Hi Grum and Tinman. How are you guys making out with your test setups?
Anything new?

I have been running various general tests with battery pulsing and cap charging/discharging.
Nothing too Earth shattering to report back so far. ;D

If you are recycling energy back to the battery using cap discharges it should extend
run times, and I can see this from some of my own basic tests, but I have seen no signs of
anything I would consider very unusual or over unity yet.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on December 03, 2017, 01:26:36 AM
Hi Grum and Tinman. How are you guys making out with your test setups?
Anything new?

I have been running various general tests with battery pulsing and cap charging/discharging.
Nothing too Earth shattering to report back so far. ;D

If you are recycling energy back to the battery using cap discharges it should extend
run times, and I can see this from some of my own basic tests, but I have seen no signs of
anything I would consider very unusual or over unity yet.

All the best...
Is it that your just copying JB device for historic purposes ?
any one remember EM Junkie  Chris 
See set of anti lenz cogging wound cols the magnet
 cycles in between the 2 coils  if your interested.
Thought it might be of interest if not  pls ignore  many thanks

AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on December 03, 2017, 12:21:45 PM
Hi Grum and Tinman. How are you guys making out with your test setups?
Anything new?

All the best...

Hello All.

I've been busy reinforcing the device and making a new commutator. I used a low viscosity Epoxy resin that has taken over three days to fully cure.

An old boss of mine kindly donated a brand new 10 AH LA motorcycle battery and another former employer gave me a new DMM.

If all goes well with the machining of the commutator today I hope to show you all our progress.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stupify12 on December 03, 2017, 03:30:08 PM
Hi Grum and Tinman. How are you guys making out with your test setups?
Anything new?

I have been running various general tests with battery pulsing and cap charging/discharging.
Nothing too Earth shattering to report back so far. ;D

If you are recycling energy back to the battery using cap discharges it should extend
run times, and I can see this from some of my own basic tests, but I have seen no signs of
anything I would consider very unusual or over unity yet.

All the best...

About pulsing 12v set up coils. Try using 1uf -10uf 400-600v for the capacitor being charge, and connect a bulb to it. We found some result with the same set up on coil but different types of capacitor being charge. 12v power input. on 10,000uf 4v is the only charge we get. On a 4uf capacitor we get 400v which could light  a build if the pulse on the coils are continued. We found that when we charge e.g. 10,000uf or 4700uf the charge are being converted to lower voltage let say 4v, which eventually dies out  and can not sustain the system.  But with 1uf -10uf 400-600v with just 1 pulse bulb could be lit continuously as long u give it a pulse. With lower UF capacitor we get higher voltage, and the voltage can make the system sustain.

Will
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on December 03, 2017, 04:40:43 PM
@Grumage

Good works as usual. About the commutator, I am sure you can find ready made slip ring sets that come with brushes that you can then re-drill the center to match your shaft diameter.

wattsup

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 03, 2017, 06:03:37 PM
Hello All.
I've been busy reinforcing the device and making a new commutator. I used a low viscosity Epoxy resin that has taken over three days to fully cure.
An old boss of mine kindly donated a brand new 10 AH LA motorcycle battery and another former employer gave me a new DMM.
If all goes well with the machining of the commutator today I hope to show you all our progress.
Cheers Graham.

Hi Grum. Sounds good.


About pulsing 12v set up coils. Try using 1uf -10uf 400-600v for the capacitor being charge, and connect a bulb to it. We found some result with the same set up on coil but different types of capacitor being charge. 12v power input. on 10,000uf 4v is the only charge we get. On a 4uf capacitor we get 400v which could light  a build if the pulse on the coils are continued. We found that when we charge e.g. 10,000uf or 4700uf the charge are being converted to lower voltage let say 4v, which eventually dies out  and can not sustain the system.  But with 1uf -10uf 400-600v with just 1 pulse bulb could be lit continuously as long u give it a pulse. With lower UF capacitor we get higher voltage, and the voltage can make the system sustain.
Will

Hi stupify12. Yes, I have been testing with different cap sizes and different switching rates
and different pulse widths and that sort of thing, but I am using solid state switching with
no motor and generator. If a motor/generator using a big flywheel is key to getting unusual
results, then I wouldn't see that in my tests.


Here are the results of one of my tests from yesterday in which I was using a small 5AH
SLA battery. I was pulsing the battery through a coil wound on a laminated steel core in this
test. My analog DC ammeter showed I was pulling a continuous average current of about 0.5A
from the 5AH battery for the whole 7 hour test run (my scope current probe showed an RMS
current of about 0.6A), and in this case feeding back pulses to the battery during the battery pulse
off time, and the little 5AH battery was still at 12.44V after 7 hours of continuously pulling 0.5A average
off it. It would appear that the pulses I was feeding back to the battery were being absorbed to some extent
by the battery, as the little 5AH battery was only dropping about 0.01V to 0.02V every half an hour, however
as can be seen in the attached graph the battery was still steadily dropping in voltage over the 7 hour test run
I did.

In this case there was no load connected to the test setup. I was just pulling current off the battery
in pulses and feeding pulses back to the battery during the battery switching off times. I will
probably continue to do some more tests with solid state switching using different configurations and settings
to see if I can see anything unusual. In tests I did where I was pulling only a small average current off the
5AH battery in the low mA range and feeding back pulses, the battery seemed to be able to hold at a steady charge,
although I didn't do a really long test run at that low current draw rate, but that is at a low current draw rate with
no load connected, so not very useful. :)

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on December 03, 2017, 11:10:37 PM
Nice work Void, it's always good to have graphs.

But...it would be even nicer if you could do a comparison. Take two identical batteries, charge them both equally (charge each first, then connect in parallel and let sit for a while to equalize). Then connect one to the system you used to get the data for the above graph, and connect the other to an ordinary resistive load that will give you the same average current draw. Plot voltage vs time as you have done but for both batteries so the discharge curves can be compared.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 03, 2017, 11:35:18 PM
Nice work Void, it's always good to have graphs.

But...it would be even nicer if you could do a comparison. Take two identical batteries, charge them both equally (charge each first, then connect in parallel and let sit for a while to equalize). Then connect one to the system you used to get the data for the above graph, and connect the other to an ordinary resistive load that will give you the same average current draw. Plot voltage vs time as you have done but for both batteries so the discharge curves can be compared.

Hi TK. Yes, I have thought of doing that if warranted (having a control setup to compare to), but in that test the battery
voltage was not holding so I didn't think it was worth the effort. However, if you take into account the Amp-hour
rating of the battery (5Ah), and consider that I was pulling approx. 0.5Amps average continuously for close to 7 hours,
then it appears that the pulses that I was feeding back in a closed loop back to the battery were helping
to keep the battery discharge rate slower than would be expected. At the rate it was discharging, it looks like
the battery might have been at around 12.32V or so at the 10 hour mark, if the discharge rate would have continued
at about the same rate for a further 3 hours. However, without feedback, after 10 hours the battery should have been about fully
discharged based on the 5Ah rating, so I would expect the battery would drop to around 11.8V or lower after 10 hours.
The results I saw were nothing too unusual though I think, as I was feeding back energy in pulses back to the battery
in a closed loop, so I would expect that it would slow down the battery discharge rate.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 04, 2017, 04:04:58 AM
Here are some results from another preliminary lower power battery pulsing test I am currently running.
Same type of 5Ah battery. Start voltage for this test was about 12.98V because I had
run a few short tests with a different setup with the same battery just before starting this new test.
(This SLA battery's unloaded terminal voltage when fully charged sits around 13.10V or so).
The battery voltage rose a bit to about 13.03V/13.04V after starting the test.

I started out pulsing the battery with 8ms width pulses which pulled current pulses from the
battery at about 340mA peak as measured with my scope current probe.  However, the pulsing frequency
is 1Hz, so the average current draw from the battery is in the low mA range, such as roughly maybe
50mA average or so, or maybe even less.  I am pulsing the current from the battery through the primary
winding of an AC transformer (to take the place of the winding for a DC motor or pulse motor).

In this test I am also pulsing a small 0.6W neon bulb as a small load with each pulse.  It is interesting
that although in the first hour I was pulling current pulses from the 5Ah battery at about 340mA peak,
once per second, the battery voltage stayed right around 13.03V to 13.04V for the full first hour of running.
The only current that I am feeding back to the battery is through the neon bulb load, making use of the
switching spikes to flash the neon bulb. I am not charging and discharging a capacitor in this test.

After a few hours I reduced the pulse width to about 5ms (from 8ms) as I noticed the battery voltage was
starting to drop a little bit (down to about 13.01V/13.02V). This setup has now been running for over 5 hours
and the battery voltage is now at around 13.00V, so it has only dropped about 0.03V or 0.04V after pulsing for more than
5 hours. Not too surprising I suppose since the average current draw from the battery is not very high
compared to the battery's current capacity, but I think it shows some potential. With some further fiddling 
to improve the energy recovery I may be able to get it better. Once I have it as good as I can get it, I may try to scale
it up to higher power with a larger battery to see how the battery voltage holds up while drawing much higher current pulses.
I am still working on ways to improve the energy recovery, so this is still preliminary.

Here's a very short video clip showing the transformer I am using for the coil, and showing the
pulsing of the small neon bulb load. It is not flashing quite as bright now since I lowered the the
pulse width to about 5ms after a few hours of running, but it is still flashing fairly bright. I will leave
it running until tomorrow to see how the battery voltage  holds up. It seems to be very slowly discharging
the battery though, so it will probably continue slowly discharging over night. No magic happening yet. :)
Short video clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBt5Qmcuh7Q
(The analog ammeter seen in the video can't respond fast enough to show the true current peaks).

I have attached a scope shot showing the current pulses from the battery when
the pulse width was set to 8ms. With the pulse width set to 5ms, the current pulses from
the battery are peaking at about 250mA.

P.S. I am driving the gate of a MOSFET from a signal generator, so the switching circuit is not
being powered from the battery in this test. If it was, the battery voltage would no doubt be
dropping more quickly. Charging caps draws more energy from the battery as well, so you are
going to need to find a fairly sizable energy gain somewhere if you want to run the control circuitry
from the battery and keep the battery charged up all the time as well. Maybe the big flywheel
with a motor/generator setup and the alternating pulsing while coasting with the flywheel can
add something special into the mix. :)

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on December 04, 2017, 01:43:47 PM
Well,after many hours work,and keeping as close as i could to Johns spec's on the 1985 energizer,--err  ::)

Will not be wasting any more of my time on this heap of garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBPI9qyQ-O4

Back to the big one,which has some sort of chance of working,


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on December 04, 2017, 02:17:55 PM
Hi Grum and Tinman. How are you guys making out with your test setups?
Anything new?

I have been running various general tests with battery pulsing and cap charging/discharging.
Nothing too Earth shattering to report back so far. ;D


All the best...

Hi Void.

I have been busy the last week,getting all set up for my daughters wedding,which was saturday just gone.

Anyway,as can be seen in the video in my last post,there is no luck at all.

When i first seen Grahams voltage output,i assumed it was from only one coil.
Then when he said it was from all 6 coils in series,i thought he must have had one 180* out of phase.
But it seems that i have much the same results as he dose--which is very poor.

This generator cant even drop 6 volts across a 100 ohm resistor  ::)--yes,thats right,not even 360mW output.

I only get a maximum voltage of 13.7v across a 10 000uF cap,and you could take a lunch break waiting for it to get that high  :o

I knew it was not going to be a good generator,but i did not think it would be this bad.

There are two of us building this machine,so we will wait and see how Grum go's--i have the feeling the results will be much the same.

Quote
If you are recycling energy back to the battery using cap discharges it should extend
run times, and I can see this from some of my own basic tests, but I have seen no signs of
anything I would consider very unusual or over unity yet.

There is another method i have tried with some success in the past,and that is by having a PM embedded within a neutralizing coil,which is encased within a core.
This then has a generating coil wrapped around the outer perimeter of the core.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 04, 2017, 04:10:19 PM
Well,after many hours work,and keeping as close as i could to Johns spec's on the 1985 energizer,--err  ::)
Will not be wasting any more of my time on this heap of garbage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBPI9qyQ-O4
Back to the big one,which has some sort of chance of working,
Brad

Hi Brad. Very nice build! Too bad it is not working well though.
Anyway it is interesting to see how that type of arrangement performs in charging caps.
I believe Grum is going to try it with a heavier flywheel, so we'll see if that makes any
difference in his test setup.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 04, 2017, 04:16:04 PM
...
There are two of us building this machine,so we will wait and see how Grum go's--i have the feeling the results will be much the same.

There is another method i have tried with some success in the past,and that is by having a PM embedded within a neutralizing coil,which is encased within a core.
This then has a generating coil wrapped around the outer perimeter of the core.
Brad

Hi Brad. Sounds interesting, although I don't completely follow how that would work exactly.
I'll be watching to see how Grum makes out with his test setup, and I will be interested to see
how your larger motor/generator setup performs in comparison to your smaller Bedini 1984 configuration replication.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on December 04, 2017, 05:18:25 PM
I had a play 2 years ago with this thing It took ages getting the fly wheel made and getting the magnet holes machined through the brass just for tests here are some pics.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on December 04, 2017, 05:28:14 PM
Also home made slip rings made from tube from local hard ware store and a load of time and a good quality Super glue used as filler with link wire packing x4. and it didn't shrink if that helps.

It was just a test device obviously it would need 2 or 4 in a line with feed trough wires between pvc tube and copper pipe with cut outs.

See pics
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on December 05, 2017, 12:26:13 PM
Ok,decided to play around with the energizer a bit more.

After some trial and error,i found a cap value that raises the output voltage of the generator,and also charges the 10 000uF cap faster,to a higher value--but still slow.

But it comes at a cost.
When the cap is added across the output to form the tank,the current draw to the prime mover go's up another 86 odd mA.

So,where we gain in one area,we loose in another.

First scope shot is without the tank cap.
Second scope shot is with the tank cap across the output.
Third scope shot same as second,only with half wave rectification.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 05, 2017, 04:53:32 PM
So,where we gain in one area,we loose in another.

Hi Brad. Yeah, maintaining LC resonance puts more load on the driving part of the circuit, in normal
circumstances anyway.  To see an OU energy gain something very out of the ordinary will have to be
happening somewhere.

I have been running tests on battery pulsing in various ways to see if I could find any unusual
battery charging effect like Tom Bearden has theorized about, but so far I have not found anything
that looks really unusual. The alternate pulsing of the motor drive and cap discharge with the use of a
sizable flywheel to keep the generator spinning up to speed during the cap discharge pulse window
is one possible source for getting an unusual gain, but of course you have to be able to get the cap bank to charge up
to at least 2 or 3 volts above the battery terminal voltage in a suitable amount of time first before trying the alternate pulsing,
which is where you seem to be having an issue.

The problem with trying to replicate other people's setups is most people who claim and demonstrate OU devices typically do
not provide enough specific details to do a proper replication. I am skeptical of John Bedini's claims because, that I know of, it seems
he never demonstrated anything publicly that really convincingly looked like over unity. As most people no doubt realize, doing relatively
short demonstrations when powering with batteries can potentially be very misleading.  When powering with batteries you have to do relatively
long test runs to see how the battery can really hold up, but this of course depends on the capacity of the battery you are testing with.
I try to keep an open mind however. Maybe there is something unusual hiding in Bedini's setups. :)

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: penno64 on December 05, 2017, 07:45:20 PM
Have a look at rob33 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGpZamfbzdo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on December 05, 2017, 08:59:14 PM
Ok,decided to play around with the energizer a bit more.

Brad

As did I.   :) ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqHec3pN2Zo

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on December 05, 2017, 10:11:54 PM
Hi grumage, thanks for sharing.
I thought the battery was supposed to be conditioned for this setup to work, is that motorcycle battery conditioned.
peace love light
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on December 06, 2017, 05:43:47 AM
Hi Brad. Yeah, maintaining LC resonance puts more load on the driving part of the circuit, in normal
circumstances anyway.  To see an OU energy gain something very out of the ordinary will have to be
happening somewhere.

I have been running tests on battery pulsing in various ways to see if I could find any unusual
battery charging effect like Tom Bearden has theorized about, but so far I have not found anything
that looks really unusual. The alternate pulsing of the motor drive and cap discharge with the use of a
sizable flywheel to keep the generator spinning up to speed during the cap discharge pulse window
is one possible source for getting an unusual gain, but of course you have to be able to get the cap bank to charge up
to at least 2 or 3 volts above the battery terminal voltage in a suitable amount of time first before trying the alternate pulsing,
which is where you seem to be having an issue.

The problem with trying to replicate other people's setups is most people who claim and demonstrate OU devices typically do
not provide enough specific details to do a proper replication. I am skeptical of John Bedini's claims because, that I know of, it seems
he never demonstrated anything publicly that really convincingly looked like over unity. As most people no doubt realize, doing relatively
short demonstrations when powering with batteries can potentially be very misleading.  When powering with batteries you have to do relatively
long test runs to see how the battery can really hold up, but this of course depends on the capacity of the battery you are testing with.
I try to keep an open mind however. Maybe there is something unusual hiding in Bedini's setups. :)

All the best...

Hi Void.

I do not believe this energizer will yield  any positive results.
The first red flag was the use of soft iron cores-way to much loss to eddy current heating--this is why we shifted to laminated cores.

I think your approach,the solid state DUT,would be a much more efficient way to go.

But,as i spent the time building the energizer,i might as well keep at it for a bit.
But at the same time,i am going to finish my larger setup,that uses a far more efficient generator.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: wattsup on December 06, 2017, 06:02:43 PM
@tinman

Scope ch1 and ch2 on two non connected or tanked coils to see their phase difference if any. Then compare to the others. Then scope two in series and compare with two others in series.

Wattsup
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on December 07, 2017, 08:30:07 PM
Hello All.

It seems I may have had my " wires crossed " in video 2!!   :-[

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9OblryAjrk

Observations?

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 07, 2017, 09:15:45 PM
Hi Grum. Interesting that the motor speeds up a bit when you connect the
cap output through the commutator pulser to the battery.

What is the frequency of your energizer output? Is it in the 180 Hz to 200 Hz range?

Are you alternating the pulsing to the motor and cap discharge so that when the motor is
powered the cap discharge is off, and when the cap discharge to the battery is on, the power to the motor
is cut off?

The commutator switch for the cap discharge pulse should be between the capacitor and the battery,
so that the capacitor is charging up when the motor is getting power, and then when the motor power is
cut off, the commutator connects the charged capacitor to the battery to discharge the cap into the battery in
a sharp high current discharge pulse. Is that how you have it? It would be nice to see a scope trace of the
voltage across the capacitor as well as the energizer output waveform, if possible. 

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on December 07, 2017, 09:39:50 PM
Hi Void.

Yes is the answer to your first two questions.

My capacitor is across the coils to create a resonant condition before the FWBR, I'm dumping from the FWBR back to the battery.

I can do a follow up tomorrow with your suggestions plus any others, if anyone is interested.

Cheers Graham.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 07, 2017, 10:00:53 PM
My capacitor is across the coils to create a resonant condition before the FWBR, I'm dumping from the FWBR back to the battery.
I can do a follow up tomorrow with your suggestions plus any others, if anyone is interested.

Hi Grum, Ok, that explains why your scope waveform was looking like that.
You can leave the cap across the coils if you want, but, I think to be like Bedini's 1984
generator setup you need another cap across the DC output of the bridge rectifier,
and the commutator switch goes between this charge cap and the battery. This charging
cap will charge up during the period when the motor is powered on, and then discharge
with a sharp current pulse into the battery when the motor power is off. This way the charge cap is storing
up energy from all the energizer pulses during the cap charge up period when the motor is powered.

P.S. If your generator RPM at top speed is around 1850 RPM, then if I didn't make a calculation error that
means each full rotation takes about 32ms. Half of that is available for the cap charge time, so about
16ms, which depending on the capacitance value of your charge cap may or may not be enough time
to charge up the cap to a voltage of at least 15V or so. The higher the total capacitance you want to charge up,
the more time it will take, so to charge up a large sized cap or cap bank you may need to gear down the
rotational speed of the commutator. If you have some different capacitance values available, if you like you can
maybe try different values of capacitance to see what max value of capacitance your generator is able to charge up
to at least 15V in 16ms.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on December 07, 2017, 11:08:09 PM
HI Grum,

I agree with void.  You need another cap after the bridge so it can charge up while the motor is running powered on.  If you were to take the time to look at the thread on the Energetic forum by Bizzy he claimed he had this system working.  He first powered the motor up to speed by bypassing the commutator.  That gave the caps time to charge up also.  He had a large collection of caps connected in parallel after his bridges.  Then when the motor was up to speed he switched in the commutator and let the caps keep the battery charged up from the pulses from the caps.  He claimed his system was large enough that he could use some of the excess energy in the caps to power an inverter to power some of his house.

Your build looks great.  Thanks for sharing.
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on December 08, 2017, 11:20:53 AM
Great engineering skills. Well done Grum! For sure i would try an operation without any diodes. Keep it up and thank you for sharing! ;)


ps. Does your energizer coils open-circuit when cap discharges to the battery?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on December 08, 2017, 12:34:35 PM
Hello All.

Many thanks for your encouragement and compliments, it’s appreciated.

My scope is telling me that the open circuit AC voltage is just under 100 V pp.

Lots of possibilities to investigate still, in fact I haven’t tried adjusting the position of the commutator with respect to the magnets yet!

Pretty sure there’s more to come.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: maxc on December 08, 2017, 04:42:08 PM
https://www.edn.com/design/components-and-packaging/4314989/MOSFETs-Increased-Efficiency-In-Bridge-Rectifiers
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on December 11, 2017, 05:22:09 PM
Hello All.

I'm pretty sure there's a few folks been waiting to see what's pictured below.

Despite the sub zero temperatures in the workshop I made a 9 magnet rotor. I'm hoping 9 is a good number, it was chosen because it suited my 90:1 ratio rotary table admirably.   :)

I'll keep you posted, Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: shylo on December 11, 2017, 10:51:53 PM
Hi Graham,
I've done alot of builds ,I would say that alternating poles is the way to go, just my opinion.
The full wave bridge creates too much drag, A pair of diodes on each lead can give you a take off point for power collection, that is say two coils wired in series can provide 3 collection points.
Currently I have the collection points of one machine feeding another machine , I have 2 machines built into one.
Any kind of core that attracts to pm 's is a step in the wrong direction, just my opinion.
Looking forward to your progress ,as well as Tinmans'  I think both of you need to stop thinking of the standard layout, because it doesn't work.
I'm wrong it works but, but not very well.
artv
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 24, 2017, 08:26:45 PM
Hi Grum and Tinman. Just following up on this. Did you guys decide to throw in the
towel on this? I tested pulsing an SLA battery in various ways using solid state switching circuitry,
but found nothing so far that would seem to magically keep the battery from discharging while
powering the switching circuitry. I could slow down the battery discharge rate, but the battery would still
slowly discharge.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on December 24, 2017, 09:04:10 PM
Hi, again Void.  :)

No towel thrown in from North Wales yet.

Christmas is a very busy time for me. The 9 magnet rotor showed some interesting results, I need to be able to accurately rotate the coil assembly WRT the commutator as I have seen 500 Volts PP on the scope in certain positions.

I chose not to use any semiconductors, purely passive capacitor bank tuned to resonance and the commutator.

To be honest I felt there was little interest being shown with this project to date?

Cheers Graham.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on December 24, 2017, 09:18:47 PM
Hi Grum. Thanks very much for the update.
That's interesting about sometimes seeing 500Vpp in some positions.
I think in some of these related generator setups, some people had the coils
offset from the magnets in a sort of non linear/out pf phase spiral or other out of phase offset
pattern, but I don't know much more about it than that, and whether or not it makes much difference to the performance.
Yes, it does seem that there wasn't all that much interest overall...
Enjoy your Christmas!

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 24, 2019, 11:27:32 AM
Hello Guys !
Why not take a simple working recipe and build from there ?
Rick Friedrich has shown a great tool of how to produce easy overunity on this video :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik
how to produce a multiplication of voltage , or amperage, or both.
How is that done and possible ?
Well, I am going to help you build one in a single hour's time below.
What you can also do, to be safely and thoroughly taught by Mr Friedrich, is get his "kit" : the "resonant inductive coupler kit" that comes with a 3 hours video to show you what is OU out of the simplest recipe on earth.

For our friends in any other country in the world, who do not have 100 USD to spend, and who may have a bit of cables , and can spend a few dollars in a few electronic parts, I am going to show you what is shown in the RICK kit, without departing, as said Tesla, from the interest of buying it.
I. You will build 3 coils which are as follows :
- 2,5 centimeter diameter (a plumber plastic should be around this and work even at 3 or 4 centimeter).
- 0.5 mm to 2 mm width for the wire
- 54 to 57 turns.
inductance : around 157 uF.

get 3 "100 pF" capacitors.

II. put all those in series :
x capacitor>coil>capacitor>coil>capacitor>coil y

III. send a SQUARE frequency of 863 KHZ at 11 to 15 volts at x and y points.
the frequency can be approximately deduced from well established formulaes, for instance :
https://goodcalculators.com/resonant-frequency-calculator/

IV. put a 100 V bulb anywhere across several points in this circuit, for instance on x and y .
it lights brigthly : voltage has been mutiplied by a factor of around X7, so a Q=7, so a 700% factor multiplier for voltage.

V. remark : the amperage stays the same.

You may now Thank Rick Friedrich for creating this kit in hommage to Don Smith, which I highly recommend to buy (100 USD).
 
Key words : Tesla, resonance , Tesla lecture 1893, high frequency, Rick Friedrich, resonance coupling, overunity, voltage multiplication, amperage multiplication.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on April 24, 2019, 03:47:58 PM
well you did pick a good place [moderated section] to start this , an attempt was tried elsewhere but
it was not a builders topic .[being rebooted as I type ,but the builds are a few weeks away still]
 


will be good to see some builds and discussion about the results .
respectfully//Chet K
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gotoluc on April 24, 2019, 04:22:15 PM
put a 100 V bulb anywhere across several points in this circuit, for instance on x and y .
it lights brigthly : voltage has been mutiplied by a factor of around X7, so a Q=7, so a 700% factor multiplier for voltage.

remark : the amperage stays the same.

Hi benfr,

It sounds like you have built, tested and obtained results.
Please post a 5 minute video demonstrating only what I quoted above.

If we see nothing then we will assume you don't have any results and you're just spreading unverified information.

Regards
Luc


BTW, you may have an error in your post "inductance : around 157 uF"  maybe it shouldbe uH and not uF?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 25, 2019, 11:26:03 AM
Hi free researchers !

1. May the Light of Jesus bright your Life and discoveries. May Him bless your search, and your findings.
Let me repeat my Blessins again to Rick Friedrich, the Father of my knowledge, for Without Him I would still err in the vagueness of free energy vain search, almost hopelessly. Let me bless Also John Bedini, Aaron Murakami and Peter Lindeman, for they have brought the SSG build kit to the world.

1. "BTW, you may have an error in your post "inductance : around 157 uF"  maybe it shouldbe uH and not uF?" Yes, you are right, one should read 157 uH.

2. Yes I thought I would post a video. This will be done this week end to help you demonstrate VOLTAGE multiplication as described.

3. Later, I can show the AMPERAGE free multiplication. And then later again, the combination of both Voltage + Amperage to freely multiply WATTS. Remember, all of this is delivered at home with the RICK kit, based on Tesla Resonance, Don Smith and finally taught by Master Professor "alive genius" Sir Rick Friedrich, (100 USD).

4. Other things you will do with the kit :
a. light a 100 volts bulb with only one wire held in your hand.
b. many more things that I am still learning and trying to understand.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: shylo on April 26, 2019, 12:58:49 AM
 :o
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 26, 2019, 03:19:21 PM
:o

Yes you can  :)
Rick Friedrich is the only guy that I know , along Gérard Morin, who has :
- made important, I should say revolutionary / changing the world discoveries
- has interstood them, mastered them with his own talent, and time, and
- shared them with no condition, no money ticket, no hinderance, nor partial hinderance, with no delay, to the world,
- offers for nothing or almost free through his product all the plans, schematics, so that YOU can understand, and so that YOU can build it
- as a model for every researcher and inventor in the world, for  those willing to build the free world of unlimited food, unlimited energy, that awaits us
- has thoroughly (I'm unable to say completely as I don't know) open the Don Smith famous massive overunity "1 gigawatt in a matchbox" systems that remained a big mystery for everyone for more than a decade, that he has now opened, explained and given the clues and explanations thereof. It is apparent that Rick has a deep bown respect for Don.

Can it even be assessed of which magnitude of importance the book Rick has published on Don Smith, and his RICK kit, is not the hand of God Himself to make the revolution come down on earth.

Rick wrote in his book("don smith's magnetic resonance systematic index series") ,
"Don Smith was the Real Deal".
Now, I write : " Rick Friedrich is the Real Deal".
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on April 26, 2019, 04:14:34 PM
Yes you can  :)
Rick Friedrich is the only guy that I know , along Gérard Morin, who has :
- made important, I should say revolutionary / changing the world discoveries
- has interstood them, mastered them with his own talent, and time, and
- shared them with no condition, no money ticket, no hinderance, nor partial hinderance, with no delay, to the world,
- offers for nothing or almost free through his product all the plans, schematics, so that YOU can understand, and so that YOU can build it
- as a model for every researcher and inventor in the world, for  those willing to build the free world of unlimited food, unlimited energy, that awaits us
- has thoroughly (I'm unable to say completely as I don't know) open the Don Smith famous massive overunity "1 gigawatt in a matchbox" systems that remained a big mystery for everyone for more than a decade, that he has now opened, explained and given the clues and explanations thereof. It is apparent that Rick has a deep bown respect for Don.

Can it even be assessed of which magnitude of importance the book Rick has published on Don Smith, and his RICK kit, is not the hand of God Himself to make the revolution come down on earth.

Rick wrote in his book("don smith's magnetic resonance systematic index series") ,
"Don Smith was the Real Deal".
Now, I write : " Rick Friedrich is the Real Deal".
Is he? didn't he pick a lot of stuff up of the late John Badini? look him up on the energetic forum and see what it says on their credit where it's due I say.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 26, 2019, 05:17:57 PM
I'm not a fan of Morin.  Friedrich is a different case.
 He is a professional and runs a business selling probably the best battery chargers in the world.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: conradelektro on April 26, 2019, 06:56:12 PM
Yes you can  :)
Rick Friedrich is the only guy that I know , along Gérard Morin, who has :
- made important, I should say revolutionary / changing the world discoveries
- has interstood them, mastered them with his own talent, and time, and
- shared them with no condition, no money ticket, no hinderance, nor partial hinderance, with no delay, to the world,
- offers for nothing or almost free through his product all the plans, schematics, so that YOU can understand, and so that YOU can build it
- as a model for every researcher and inventor in the world, for  those willing to build the free world of unlimited food, unlimited energy, that awaits us
- has thoroughly (I'm unable to say completely as I don't know) open the Don Smith famous massive overunity "1 gigawatt in a matchbox" systems that remained a big mystery for everyone for more than a decade, that he has now opened, explained and given the clues and explanations thereof. It is apparent that Rick has a deep bown respect for Don.

.......


Readers and interested parties might want to consider this (the typical OU mess and double talk from all sides, and as always, the wonder machine is nowhere):


https://rickfriedrich.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/rick-friedrich-r-charge/ (https://rickfriedrich.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/rick-friedrich-r-charge/)

http://www.energyscienceforum.com/showthread.php?t=3782 (http://www.energyscienceforum.com/showthread.php?t=3782)

Cited from above link:

In the early to mid 2000’s, Rick Friedrich proposed a business deal to EnergenX, Inc., a company headed up by a world famous electrical engineer, John Bedini. Rick Friedrich’s desire was to private label battery chargers and rejuvenators built by John Bedini’s company. Rick Friedrich‘s company name was Renaissance Charge or R-Charge for short.[/font][/size]Rick Friedrich signed a non-disclosure agreement with EnergenX and promised to respect the confidentiality of John Bedini’s proprietary information that went into the chargers. This intellectual property was the sole property of John Bedini and EnergenX.https://rickfriedrich.wordpress.com/ (https://rickfriedrich.wordpress.com/)A few years ago, around 2011, it was discovered that Rick Friedrich had been involved in some shady business deals with many customers in addition to discovering the disappearance of hardware that was the property of EnergenX. It was also discovered that Rick Friedrich had been accessing John Bedini’s computers by sneaking into the building at night and going through the files.There were also some energizer kits based on John Bedini’s “SG” designs that were manufactured and distributed by Rick Friedrich. One of the larger units was sold by him to someone for thousands of dollars. As soon as Rick Friedrich of R-Charge had this money, he immediately commenced to sell this exact same unit to someone else for the same amount of money. This is one of countless incidents that Rick Friedrich had done to a number of customers.This quickly became the normal course of operation for Rick Friedrich and John Bedini and his associates and company wanted nothing more to do with him or his way of doing business. Rick Friedrich‘s relationship with EnergenX was immediately terminated and he got the boot. Immediately, Rick Friedrich began to manufacture and sell battery chargers based on EnergenX’s proprietary circuits, albeit older obsolete ones, but nevertheless, this was all in complete violation of the non disclosure agreement that he signed with EnergenX.Since then, EnergenX and its distributors have collectively received many dozens of complaints from customers because of purchasing battery chargers and never receiving product. These complaints included the fact that they never received customer service. Many of these complaints also included the fact that many of the chargers did not work, worked a short time or simply did not do as claimed. What surprised everyone is when they learned that Rick Friedrich and R-Charge actually had no further relationship with EnergenX and that he was illegally selling low quality bootlegged versions of John Bedini’s chargers.To this day, Rick Friedrich continues to sell his low quality pirated versions of these chargers and he also holds mini-conferences claiming to be an expert in “free energy” technologies. He claims to be a man of God and most of his websites are dedicated to him preaching the Gospel to others. This is all one big hypocritical act because the truth is that he is nothing more than a common thief and we challenge him to prove otherwise.If you have been personally ripped off or hoodwinked by Rick Friedrich the charlatan, we invite you to please contact us and submit your story. If you can include your real name, email, mailing address and phone number, we are going to compile all of these complaints and submit them to the Attorney General as long as various federal agencies because the time has come for his dog and pony show to come to and end.Please let us know if we can post your complaint publicly on this website. We will remove your personal contact information but would like to list your name and location. If you want to remain anonymous, we will respect that as well. If you do not want us to list your complaint at all, that is fine and we will simply reserve it for the Attorney General.You can read the truth in John Bedini’s own words here: http://www.energeticforum.com/john-b...on-bedini.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/john-bedini/12406-rick-friedrich-separation-bedini.html)[/size]And here is an old site by John Bedini showing how Rick Friedrich was stealing his oscillator technology and selling it behind his back: http://www.johnbedini.net/john34/history.htm (http://www.johnbedini.net/john34/history.htm)[/size]Please submit your complaints here: https://rickfriedrich.wordpress.com/contact/ (https://rickfriedrich.wordpress.com/contact/)[/size]
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 26, 2019, 07:20:01 PM
I woud be very careful about reprinting something which may or may not be true.  In England recently someone was jailed for 2 years for putting out revenge pornography.  Making posts with no evidence except citing someone else can be both a civil and criminal offence and you won't catch me doing it.
There have also been cases where people have put out fake likes and dislikes being taken to court.  The internet is changing fast and hiding behind handles is no longer accepted or tolerated.
I woud prefer responsible discussions on the technology being described rather than character assassinations.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: conradelektro on April 26, 2019, 07:43:11 PM
I woud be very careful about reprinting something which may or may not be true.  In England recently someone was jailed for 2 years for putting out revenge pornography.  Making posts with no evidence except citing someone else can be both a civil and criminal offence and you won't catch me doing it.
There have also been cases where people have put out fake likes and dislikes being taken to court.  The internet is changing fast and hiding behind handles is no longer accepted or tolerated.
I woud prefer responsible discussions on the technology being described rather than character assassinations.


Nice try! Come up with some evidence instead!


It is a crime to claim impossible things. It is no crime to doubt impossible things. Only spammers and frauds threaten doubters. Real men provide proof.


Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 26, 2019, 09:47:05 PM
Hello Guys !
Why not take a simple working recipe and build from there ?
Rick Friedrich has shown a great tool of how to produce easy overunity on this video :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik
how to produce a multiplication of voltage , or amperage, or both.
How is that done and possible ?
Well, I am going to help you build one in a single hour's time below.
What you can also do, to be safely and thoroughly taught by Mr Friedrich, is get his "kit" : the "resonant inductive coupler kit" that comes with a 3 hours video to show you what is OU out of the simplest recipe on earth.

For our friends in any other country in the world, who do not have 100 USD to spend, and who may have a bit of cables , and can spend a few dollars in a few electronic parts, I am going to show you what is shown in the RICK kit, without departing, as said Tesla, from the interest of buying it.
I. You will build 3 coils which are as follows :
- 2,5 centimeter diameter (a plumber plastic should be around this and work even at 3 or 4 centimeter).
- 0.5 mm to 2 mm width for the wire
- 54 to 57 turns.
inductance : around 157 uF.

get 3 "100 pF" capacitors.

II. put all those in series :
x capacitor>coil>capacitor>coil>capacitor>coil y

III. send a SQUARE frequency of 863 KHZ at 11 to 15 volts at x and y points.
the frequency can be approximately deduced from well established formulaes, for instance :
https://goodcalculators.com/resonant-frequency-calculator/ (https://goodcalculators.com/resonant-frequency-calculator/)

IV. put a 100 V bulb anywhere across several points in this circuit, for instance on x and y .
it lights brigthly : voltage has been mutiplied by a factor of around X7, so a Q=7, so a 700% factor multiplier for voltage.

V. remark : the amperage stays the same.

You may now Thank Rick Friedrich for creating this kit in hommage to Don Smith, which I highly recommend to buy (100 USD).
 
Key words : Tesla, resonance , Tesla lecture 1893, high frequency, Rick Friedrich, resonance coupling, overunity, voltage multiplication, amperage multiplication.

Benfr,


According to this website (and my experience), the given coil data does not match:
http://hamwaves.com/inductance/en/index.html#input (http://hamwaves.com/inductance/en/index.html#input)

Quote
- 2,5 centimeter diameter (a plumber plastic should be around this and work even at 3 or 4 centimeter).
- 0.5 mm to 2 mm width for the wire
- 54 to 57 turns.
inductance : around 157 uF.


At 0.5mm wire width, the inductance comes at ~49uH
At 2mm wire width, the inductance comes at ~14uH.

So both are way off from your 157uH.

So what is the goal, the 157uH inductance, the number of turns, the length of the coils or?

Further, do we need it to be in resonance?   You did not say, but kind of hinted at it by giving the "resonant frequency calculator" link.
By the way when using that calculator, i get with 157uH and 100pF a resonance frequency of 1270Khz, so what is that about 863Khz SQUARE to tune to?


 
Anyway, i build your little circuit in a simulator (LTspice) and used the following:
100pf caps
157uH coils
166 Ohm load as bulb
square wave (50% duty cycle) signal 15Vpp (AC).

The signal across the bulb / square wave source looks like the green trace (nice 15Vpp square wave signal).
No way to get a 100V bulb lightning up i think.
See first picture.
Is that circuit the one you had in mind?


I then really build that circuit (coils 163uH / 106 turns / 0.45mm wire) and using 15Vpp square wave 50% duty cycle and a 220V 25W bulb.
Needless to say that the bulb never lighted up.
Below a screenshot of the signal at 863Khz (blue) and at resonance which is 1224Khz in my case (white).

what am i doing wrong? Are you having better results?  Please show.

(The file 3 coils.png is the LTspice sim file,  please rename to 3 coil.asc to use in LTspice)

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on April 27, 2019, 12:07:26 AM
Itsu, i'm a bit of a novice on this but from what i know doesn't the C value and the L value of 'impedance need to be the same for both items ie Rc and Lc ?  for your selected frequency? Hmm, hows your formula knowledge and maths?


https://ncalculators.com/electronics/reactance-calculator.htm
working out inductive and capacitance reactance impudance  ;D ;D oops meant impedance

I will leave you to it it's good fun (if you have the time to wast). guys don't realize what's involved in this so-called zero point  8) 8) have fun and good luck.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 27, 2019, 12:57:17 AM
Hi AlienGrey,

You have a little bit unusual approach to bring an L inductance and a C capacitance to resonance. It is ok that at resonance
the L and C will have identical reactance values (which cancel) but you do not need to use such approach.  And no doubt,
you can arrive at your goal by using the reactance calculator and iterate values for matching the two reactances.
Simply you can instead use online LC resonance calculator (that are based on the Thomson formula) which gives the resonant frequency
the moment you punch the L and C value into it.  And then the reactances at the resonant frequencies will surely be equal.

Member benfr included a link to such calculator in his post and here is another one:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/tools/tank-circuit-resonance-calculator/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/tools/tank-circuit-resonance-calculator/)  Just enter 100 pF and 163 uH (that was Itsu's actual coil inductance
he used) and you get 1247 kHz, pretty close to his scope measurement of 1224 kHz (see his white trace data on the right).  If you read and understand,  the problem Itsu noticed and asked was the coil data (number of turns, coil OD) member
benfr provided does not give 157 uH inductance but much less. This is one main point, ok?

Peace
Gyula



Itsu, i'm a bit of a novice on this but from what i know doesn't the C value and the L value of 'impedance need to be the same for both items ie Rc and Lc ?  for your selected frequency? Hmm, hows your formula knowledge and maths?


https://ncalculators.com/electronics/reactance-calculator.htm (https://ncalculators.com/electronics/reactance-calculator.htm)
working out inductive and capacitance reactance impudance  ;D ;D oops meant impedance

I will leave you to it it's good fun (if you have the time to wast). guys don't realize what's involved in this so-called zero point  8) 8) have fun and good luck.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on April 27, 2019, 02:13:13 AM
Hi AlienGrey,

You have a little bit unusual approach to bring an L inductance and a C capacitance to resonance. It is ok that at resonance
the L and C will have identical reactance values (which cancel) but you do not need to use such approach.  And no doubt,
you can arrive at your goal by using the reactance calculator and iterate values for matching the two reactances.
Simply you can instead use online LC resonance calculator (that are based on the Thomson formula) which gives the resonant frequency
the moment you punch the L and C value into it.  And then the reactances at the resonant frequencies will surely be equal.

Member benfr included a link to such calculator in his post and here is another one:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/tools/tank-circuit-resonance-calculator/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/tools/tank-circuit-resonance-calculator/)  Just enter 100 pF and 163 uH (that was Itsu's actual coil inductance
he used) and you get 1247 kHz, pretty close to his scope measurement of 1224 kHz (see his white trace data on the right).  If you read and understand,  the problem Itsu noticed and asked was the coil data (number of turns, coil OD) member
benfr provided does not give 157 uH inductance but much less. This is one main point, ok?

Peace
Gyula
Hi wasn't aware impedance matching was the same as resonant frequency as one can get multiple points of resonance with a coil scope and signal gen, not to wory though.

While your on can i pick your brains on NE555 any idea how i can get a 50/50 waveform out of a 555 without having to keep adjusting it with another pot and a diode or using a D type at double the frequency as I need a span of 30khz to 80 khz ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on April 27, 2019, 12:37:47 PM
Hi Itsu.

Many thanks for " actually/physically " building this device.   :)

How were your 3 coils oriented to each other for the test?

Is it possible for you to try say one coil in a vertical position WRT the others?

The term " electromagnetic " has been bandied about, I'm wondering about " interaction " and possibly the physical separation distance of the coils might have an influence?

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 27, 2019, 01:14:07 PM

Hi Grum,

the 3 coils are initially vertically positioned, but are flexible, see picture.

I did try severall positions and distances, but mostly the resonance frequency is influenced by that, not
the output amplitude or signal shape.

Thats why i am asking if i am doing something wrong and if this is the circuit Benfr has in mind.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on April 27, 2019, 01:30:28 PM
Hi Grum,

the 3 coils are initially vertically positioned, but are flexible, see picture.

I did try severall positions and distances, but mostly the resonance frequency is influenced by that, not
the output amplitude or signal shape.

Thats why i am asking if i am doing something wrong and if this is the circuit Benfr has in mind.

Itsu

Many thanks Itsu.

Did you try with one coil laid horizontal WRT the others?

 :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 27, 2019, 02:30:03 PM

...
While your on can i pick your brains on NE555 any idea how i can get a 50/50 waveform out of a 555 without having to keep adjusting it with another pot and a diode or using a D type at double the frequency as I need a span of 30khz to 80 khz ?
Hey AG,

LOL    Just a brief answer because your question is off topic here: if you use a Schmitt trigger oscillator
with either TTL, CMOS, HCMOS etc chips you will have achieved your goal, see this link:
http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/7414-oscillator-calculator.php
If you use say C = 1 nF  and R = 25 kOhm potmeter in series with a 15 kOhm fix resistor, the upper frequency
would be 80 kHz (when the potmeter is fully shorted) and 30 kHz when the potmeter is set to 25 kOhm
(so total R would be 15+25=40kOhm). Further possibility is using a 10 kOhm potmeter in series with
a 5 kOhm fix resistor when C=3 nF (2x 1.5nF in parallel) etc etc.  You will have a 50% duty cycle.
25 kOhm potmeters are at RS Components etc. Of course you can play with the calculator in the link
to figure out other values for your potmeters at hand.   

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 27, 2019, 04:02:21 PM
Many thanks Itsu.

Did you try with one coil laid horizontal WRT the others?

 :)

Hi Grum,

yes, i did just now again and all kind of other combinations.
The load of the FG (50 Ohm) and the load of my bulb (100 Ohm cold) will dampen the resonance.

Only the resonance frequency shifts when changing distance and/or coil positions (horizontal/vertical)


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 28, 2019, 04:09:23 AM

Itsu,The whole point is transmission and reception of electricity at resonance. You should have one transmitter coil and any number of resonantly tuned receiver coils.  Series tank resonance is most effective because you should see a voltage gain whilst the input amperage and circulating series tank amperage should remain the same.  That's the whole point of this exercise. It's two fingers at Kirchhoff's law .
At a certain distance from the transmitter the frequency remains stable. Then you can place an unlimited number of receiver coils  IN THREE DIMENSIONS and receive approximately 40% of the power per receiver according to the claim. The claim is superconductivity at room temperature at RESONANCE. At 18 volts into the gate driver the output voltage should increase 144 times whilst the amperage stays the same on both the input amperage  and amperage inside the series tank.
I am sure you know what this claim means.
You also need a gaussmeter in order to see the magnetic field in three dimensions.  The proper name is magnetic resonance and is the basis of Don Smith's work.
According to the claim most EE students assume that as  the voltage rises the amperage falls and that is where the big con exists. Do the experiment and find out  -  is the next big test of the claim.


The receiver coils should not be electrically connected to the transmitter coil in any way. They should be freestanding in the same way that a radio is not connected to the transmitter except by resonance ( ie tuning).


  You need some variable capacitors, and < 100 pf work in the 1.25 Mhz range.  If you go into the Khz you are gonna need bigger variable caps and they get very expensive.


You also need to experiment with grounding the receiver coils in the same way Tesla did.  What happens when you ground the receiver coils?  Another little surprise coming...
Suddenly Don Smith and Kapanadze seem credible.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: IonLady on April 28, 2019, 05:05:31 AM
Good Info!!!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 28, 2019, 05:44:38 AM

ITSU:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHr3eDELyHk&t=6499s  at 1 hour 44 minutes onwards is Don Smith showing the transmission/receiving device.  Rick's kit is minus the L2 coil and is safer than Don Smith's.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 28, 2019, 05:52:18 AM
Itsu:  Here is a screenshot of the device Rick has replicated.



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 28, 2019, 10:53:46 AM

Hi a.king21,

what you are describing is a total different setup as what Benfr has presented and what i am replicating.

I know all about the Don Smit fantasy circuits as when i started with this FE stuff about 10 years ago he
was the first one i stumbled on.

I spend months then understanding / replicating, but finally give up on it, with reason.


Anyway, the present Benfr setup does not work for me and i am awaiting for him to show his results.


Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 28, 2019, 02:13:16 PM
Point taken, Itsu.  I was referring to Rick's  video on the subject and the ultimate claims.


Benfr:  Can you let us know the full specs of your 100 volt bulb please?  A photo would be great.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 28, 2019, 02:56:07 PM
Hi a.king21,

Would like to ask you whether you are aware of the received power levels quantitatively at the output of each receiver module? LED lamps (say with 3 to 5 W data sheet ratings) are surely lit but actually how much power drives them is not shown as measured, this is why I ask.

It is ok that performing such measurements is not easy (instruments are in the vicinity of the strong EM near field of the single transmitter coil). Perhaps Using a full wave diode bridge across the AC output of each receiver modul and say the use of 100 or 220 uF puffer capacitors to filter the diode's DC output would help: this DC output then could drive a known resistor load across which just a DC voltage level check would be needed. 
The value of these resistors could be calculated like this: if the shown LED lamps were say 12V and say 3W rated, then their equivalent resistance were (12 x 12) / 3 = 48 Ohm, ok? (use a 47 Ohm, at least 2W rated ones). This is the load any such LED lamp (12V, 3W) would represent towards any 12V voltage source when the source is able to maintain the 12V voltage level.  For other LED lamps the same calculation can be used to learn what actual load they represent when fed by their specified voltage.

Obviously, if the voltage level is say 11V or 9.5V or less, the consumed power by this LED becomes less and less too, LED lamps are non linear loads. However, the actual DC power dissipated in a resistor can immediately be known by a simple DC level test across the resistor. If you find say only 10V across a 47 Ohm resistor, then the consumed power would be (10x10)/47=2.1W and so on.  Notice that a 2V less input voltage (wrt 12V) results in almost 1W less power draw.

For diode bridges,  the cheap UF4007 fast Si diodes are fine, especially if each diode in the bridge is made of two paralleled ones, to reduce overall voltage drop across the bridges.Or use Shottky diodes to make the bridges to reduce voltage loss further on.

This way, by summing up the DC power levels in the resistors across each receiver output, and checking the DC input to the transmitter coil driver IC, a fair comparison of the input and output powers can be obtained. 
Are you aware of any such tests done on a single transmitter, multiple receiver modul setup?

Could you do such tests if you have such kit? This is the only way to arrive at any performance evaluation.
If truth is important, that is.
I am not trying to nit-pick with you or anyone else, even a 'mere' COP = 1.5 result would be fantastic, not to mention anything higher, like a COP 144 claim. Do you agree?

Thanks, Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 28, 2019, 05:45:41 PM
I think the uf4007 diodes are only rated to 800 volts. whereas the circulating voltage in the series resonant tank circuit is claimed by Rick to be much higher - up to > 2000 volts.
 
The kernel of Rick's claims are that in a series tank circuit at 18 volts to the gate driver at resonance - the amperage stays the same both outside and inside the circuit whilst the voltage can rise up to 144 times  in the circulating current in the series tank circuit. Hence the claim of COP 144. So this should be an easy test for individuals with a scope to do.  There is no point in going further until Rick's claims are verified independently and multiple times.  we need verification of the above point. Even cop 3 should prove the main point  ie that at resonance we have a real gain.



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 28, 2019, 08:12:29 PM
A.king21,

The phenomena of the Q times multiplication of input current or voltage in resonant LC circuits has been known since LC resonance was discovered.

So, with resonant tank circuits the voltage across L or C can be Q times as high as the input voltage source and if the unloaded Q of a particular LC setup is say 144, then the 18V input is multiplied by 144, giving 2592 V across L or C.

 BUT I wrote the use of diode bridges across the AC output of the RECEIVER modules and it is the transmitter side where these high voltages are present and Rick measured it across his single transmitter coil!
For the receiver modules which are excited by near field EM radiation from the single transmitter coil, and the modules placed at a distance from the transmitter coil, you can be lucky if some hundred volts appear at the output of the receiver modules, it all depends on the distance, the amount of the load (LED wattage rating or load resistor value) and the number of receiver modules, so no need for 2000 volts rated diodes at all. Even if there was a need, you could always connect two or three UF4007 diodes in series, their forward voltage drop of about 3 or 4 V would still be negligible when the receiver circuit indeed develops > 1000 or 2000 volts.   But there is but maximum some hundred volts involved in the receiver modules anyway.

By the way here is a data sheet for the UF 4000 diode family, the UF4007 type has 1000 V reverse voltage rating:
https://www.mouser.com/ds/2/149/UF4001-890177.pdf (https://www.mouser.com/ds/2/149/UF4001-890177.pdf)   
Some data sheets from other manufacturer specify this in RMS as 800 V  maximum (but the peak reverse voltage is still given as 1000V for the UF4007).  But anyway the diode type cannot be an issue, ok? Think of microwave owen diode types etc.

Regarding this text: "The kernel of Rick's claims are that in a series tank circuit at 18 volts to the gate driver at resonance - the amperage stays the same both outside and inside the circuit whilst the voltage can rise up to 144 times  in the circulating current in the series tank circuit. Hence the claim of COP 144."

This is what is correct to say:  the input current to the gate driver IC may change relatively little when it drives a series LC circuit at resonance and you couple receiver modules to the single transmitter coil (provided the driver IC has very small output impedance).  If 18 V feeds the LC circuit from the IC output, and the unloaded Q of the LC circuit HAPPENS to be 144, then the Q times the 18 V appears across either the C or the L member of the LC series circuit, ok? Please study what factors influence the Q of a resonant LC circuit, lots of information can be read on the web. 

The problem is that this voltage multiplication does not mean average power (or energy) increase with respect to the average input power (or input energy) what the driver IC output feeds into the resonant LC circuit.

So what should really be tested is what I already suggested: to sum up mathematically the outputs of the receiver modules across their output loads and then confront this with the input power the driver IC consumes, to get the COP value.

THIS is the ONLY test which would be correct to perform.

You wrote: "Even cop 3 should prove the main point  ie that at resonance we have a real gain." 

Once again: you or Rick has voltage gain at resonance, this does not involve COP > 1 performance. IF anyone thinks differently, then he or she should perform the correct tests (as I suggested) to make sure about it. 

It is not the replicators's task to prove that Rick's setup has a COP > 1 performance.
COP evaluation is not based on voltage or current amplification.

Please consider to answer my questions posed in my previous post. I answered to your above post on what should be verified.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 28, 2019, 09:04:42 PM

Gyula is so right (again).

looking at Rick his video, he is measuring with his scope across the C of a "series LC".
A FG (50 Ohm) is across the whole LC, so "sees" at resonance a minimum impedance (few Ohms).

When doing this in LTspice, i get for C=100pF, L=157uH and a resonance frequency of 1270Khz the below picture.
Green is the FG input across the whole LC (10Vpp), blue is the signal across C (stabilizing at 180Vpp)



Doing the same with one of my coils/cap (100pF / 163uH) i get the below screenshot.
Purple is the sine wave input from my FG (800mVpp).
Blue is the signal across C (98Vpp).

So do we have a cop of 122 here?  I don't think so.
My LCR meter measures a Q of 121 across this LC circuit, so very close.

(The "Rick LC simfile.png" attached below is again the LTspice sim file used, please rename to .asc to use in LTspice). 

Itsu
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 29, 2019, 11:48:25 AM
Hi there !!!

Well, I'm impressed. I see Itsu's setup photo and telling that 's a dream come true. You are close to being able to replicate a Don Smith #2 "massive overunity" system. You have started to open the door. Congratulations !!
I also think that a.king21 has had such a creative and positive contribution to this thread. I suspect now that a.king21 has far more knowledge than I do !!

Itsu, you are stating to have worked on Don Smith systems and gave up. What a story ! I believe, now I have not yet gone so far, that if you get Rick Friedrich's book it will help you understand how you couldn't achieve discovery. Please BEWARE Don SMith system's are a "one hand in the pocket" machines, and that you should never touch any cable while in operation !
The power we are talking of right here are deadly. You would die instantly, even be vaporized. Don SMith 's systems are not a toy ! Rick Friedrich's RICK kit is safe. I would recommend to master it before building something bigger ! If you wish to stay alive of course ... ;)

Now I have 2 little 'mistakes' written and I need to correct it. The frequency is not 863KHZ with these capacitors. I have confused my reporting with an anterior experiment the same hour, please pardon me.
I will sum up again.

3 cap 100 pF
3 coil 157 uH
1 freq gen at the point of resonance as indicated in RICK 's kit : 1.25 MHZ (it is around that value, between 1.20 and 1.30, but you can dowse by 10 KHZ to find it quick-like. to find it you can position the bulb firsthand and then modify the frequency as indicated).

the positioning of the coil is also incorrect : I wrote to connect a 100 V bulb on x and y on the following series :
x- cap - inductor - cap - inductor - cap - inductor - y
but it is not correct. the one to use is :
freq gen cable A - capacitor -x - inductor - cap - inductor - capacitor -inductor - y - freq gen cable B
Sorry ! I was too hurried. But I believe what I'm bringing here will keep your faith.

The good news is while preparing my photo and noticing my 2 short mistakes*, I have noticed an even simpler and cheaper setup.
You can actually do this overunity setup with just 1 coil and 1 cap !!! :
cap - x - inductor - y.
(in tradeoff, you need to use 13 V instead of 11 V ).

An important statement to make as I see some of the measurements tried above involve oscilloscopes : you CANNOT use a OSCILLOSCOPE for it will CHANGE the resonance. (this is called a probe effect and it is well described in the kit ).
You must stick to real values things ie BULBS, LEDS that you know. The bulb you see is as stated a 100 V bulb that I bought in the USA.

Additional note : This test come also show overunity from a 1 V input to light 4 V LEDS : just replace the bulb with the LED, and drop the voltage down to 1 V.

IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT OVERUNITY DISCLOSURE CONSIDER SPENDING 100 USD TO BUY Rick Friedrich's RICK KIT who has never hidden anything of his vast knowledge and genius to US ;D (I have no interest in the sales what so ever  ;))

Now the photos will speak ! One photo speaks 1000 words !

* short but enough to render impossible the voltage 700% overunity.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 29, 2019, 11:51:46 AM
photo 3 coils
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 29, 2019, 11:52:50 AM
RICK kit 2 coils overunity
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 29, 2019, 11:54:40 AM
1 coil overunity Rick Friedrich's "RICK" kit
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 29, 2019, 11:55:43 AM
with 3 coils and a slight manipulation, I was able to light it from 8.7 V, too.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 29, 2019, 12:51:58 PM

Hi Benfr,

Ok thanks, so that is your 100V bulb?

To me that is a NE-2 neon indicator lamp, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_lamp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_lamp)

It lights up across the capacitor when there is 90V plus or so across it, and there is as shown in my post #289 or so above.
The problem is you can not use it other then lighting up such a neon indicator or some leds.

Please read up on series resonance circuits:
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-resonance.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-resonance.html)

Under "Impedance in a Series Resonance Circuit"


And yes, my 2 coil setup also lights up such a neon indicator at 12V in resonance, see picture.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 29, 2019, 01:46:28 PM
Yes, it's a NE-2 bulb, I can recall it. Congratulations !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on April 29, 2019, 04:28:46 PM
itsu
 ;D ::) Thumbs up !!
Nice teaching!

Don't raise the input voltage You can kill yourself  8)

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 29, 2019, 04:57:27 PM

Hi benfr,

Very nice setups you show with the kits, thanks and congratulations to you too. What I would like to understand is
why you describe this setup as overunity ?   

You are surely familiar with so called Joule thief circuits. If not, you can find plenty of information on this forum
or on the web, just search for: Joule thief  They are basically known as kinda blocking oscillators. 

The reason I mention this is that a neon bulb like you use (NE-2 type) does not need an expensive kit to make it light up, 
just build a Joule thief oscillator and take say an 1.2 volt battery and the bulb will be lit nicely with them.
Here is a 4 minute long video showing it in action: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxIXESkS3I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxIXESkS3I)

The circuit can work from even a discharged battery that has about 0.84 VDC only and you can see input voltage amplified
up well over 100 volts shown on the oscilloscope. Do you consider this as 100 times overunity?
Here is another Joule thief for operating a neon bulb:
https://www.instructables.com/id/high-voltage-joule-thief/ (https://www.instructables.com/id/high-voltage-joule-thief/) 

If you have some more time, this video includes several Joule thiefs including neon bulb: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQqAP_tyEqg   

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 29, 2019, 06:15:33 PM
Hello Gyula,

You seem a lot experienced, and you are more than I am in joule thief circuit, which I don't know.

May be your question relates to COP > 1 ? Here we observe a COP of 7 to 10. This is manifested in voltage only. That's more than enough to change the world by a good bit, already !  :)

To answer your question "why you describe this setup as overunity ?" it is probably a misunderstanding about what happens in the circuit.
Although it may appear not as clearly stated, this article enunciate the case for energy amplification :
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-resonance.html
 
Simply said, if you can multiply voltage while keeping the same amperage, you have therefore overunity.
The case is what we have here : a voltage amplification -  while there is no compression, nor any irregularity of the outpu
t (no more than the regularity of the input) : just a plain same frequency output at the same frequency than the input but a voltage many times offered.

I could understand your question of course if you 'd suspected we had reduced the amperage in tradeoff, or if the voltage amplification was apparent for a small duration irt the input voltage... As you now have understood, it is not the case here.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on April 29, 2019, 08:28:07 PM
You can maybe build an OU
 NE-2 Ring Counter  ;)
N.B. You use 100 Volt input and 1 Mega Ohm series resistors (tiny current).
"A NE-2 is a very low-current device !"

http://www.bristolwatch.com/ele/neon.htm

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 29, 2019, 09:06:47 PM

Benfr,


Quote
Simply said, if you can multiply voltage while keeping the same amperage, you have therefore overunity.

I wish it would be that simple, but besides voltage, current and power, there are also things like phase, real power, reactive power, etc.
Please take a look at how AC power is derived here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

And why there is such a high voltage across C or L (but 180° out of phase, so canceled) in a series LRC circuit here:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-voltage-drop-across-the-inductor-L-and-the-capacitor-C-much-larger-than-the-applied-voltage-in-a-series-of-resonance-circuits
 
Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on April 29, 2019, 10:13:32 PM
Hi3 pages back re Rick F and his fancy 50 dollar 157uhry coils one guy finds a junk RC calculator that ets a 100uf cap to resonate at 1 khz, is that a joke or what ?


https://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm
Resonant Frequency Calculator


anyway, see pic!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 29, 2019, 10:19:49 PM

Hi benfr,

Unfortunately, you misunderstand the operation of a series LC circuit.  In the tutorial url link you referred to, there is nothing which would imply:  "if you can multiply voltage while keeping the same amperage, you have therefore overunity." 

Try to estimate how much power your neon bulb consumes. Here is a data sheet http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/57560.pdf (http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/57560.pdf) on it, page 2,  NE-2 draws 0.6 mA and breakdown voltage is betwen 60 to 90 VDC. 
Lets choose say 75 V, divided by 0.6 mA gives 125 kOhm, ok? This is the load for you resonant circuit WHENEVER the instanteneous AC voltage across the coil (or capacitor) exceeds 75 V. Now estimate that out of a full cycle, T=0.809 us (T=1/1235kHz), how many us (microsecond) part of the sine wave is under +/-75V, and how many us part of the sine wave exceeds +/-75V (suppose your sine wave across L or C has say 110 Vpp)?  because current can flow through the bulb only when voltage difference across it exceeds 75V.  The ON time for the bulb versus the OFF time is way less time duration within a T period, this means that even the very small 0.6 mA load current is flowing for say 1/3 or 1/4 of the T time period. 
Try to use an incandescent lamp (or a fix resistor as I suggested to member A.king) which will will be present during 100% of the T time period (except at zero crossings of course) and then see the real performance.  With neon bulb you have some hundred microwatt output power versus the some ten milliwatt input your function generator feeds into your circuit.

This leads you to study the meaning of peak and average power in an LC circuit.   

Have a look at this circuit  http://www.discovercircuits.com/DJ-Circuits/ac14fls.htm (http://www.discovercircuits.com/DJ-Circuits/ac14fls.htm)   
where a pulsed LED lamp is fed from a 1.5V battery and see what a big difference can exist between peak LED current and average LED current, hence peak power and average power drawn from the battery. It is the average current which counts on the long term of course and defines battery life time.  The 20 mA peak current flows only for 400 usec in that circuit at each ON time.

Overunity which is a misnomer, (better use efficiency or COP), should be used to compare the average input power (or energy) to the average output power (or energy) a device supplies to your load as useful output.
Efficiency or COP (or the misused name overunity) is never used for comparing only input voltage (or current) to output voltage (or current), it is a mistake, always average power levels should be used.

Gyula
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 29, 2019, 10:28:01 PM
Hi3 pages back re Rick F and his fancy 50 dollar 157uhry coils one guy finds a junk RC calculator that ets a 100uf cap to resonate at 1 khz, is that a joke or what ?


https://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm (https://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm)
Resonant Frequency Calculator


anyway, see pic!
Please give more details,  where is 1 kHz and where is 100 uF in these LC circuits involved? Who wrote that, give Reply #
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tomd on April 29, 2019, 11:02:17 PM
As I understand it these coils are used to demonstrate some of the principles underlying some of Don Smith's devices. In particular I'm thinking of the device having a loosely coupled primary and secondary Tesla coil surrounded wirelessly by 3 coils in resonance with the secondary.
In his 1994 video Don said in reference to series resonance "Almost all the things that go on here will be essentially in parallel because when you put them in series you get a degradation."
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 29, 2019, 11:18:20 PM
Hi tomd,
Member aking posted this: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533791/#msg533791 

What Don did demonstrate was an off the shelf inverter driving a fan from a 12V battery and when asked why he did not show the two other boards hooked up into his setup, he answered he also had 24 hours a day like anyone else...   
In fact he never showed his HV boards operating and producing the kiloWatts output.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on April 30, 2019, 01:18:50 AM
Hello Guys !
Why not take a simple working recipe and build from there ?
Rick Friedrich has shown a great tool of how to produce easy overunity on this video :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik
how to produce a multiplication of voltage , or amperage, or both.
How is that done and possible ?
Well, I am going to help you build one in a single hour's time below.
What you can also do, to be safely and thoroughly taught by Mr Friedrich, is get his "kit" : the "resonant inductive coupler kit" that comes with a 3 hours video to show you what is OU out of the simplest recipe on earth.

For our friends in any other country in the world, who do not have 100 USD to spend, and who may have a bit of cables , and can spend a few dollars in a few electronic parts, I am going to show you what is shown in the RICK kit, without departing, as said Tesla, from the interest of buying it.
I. You will build 3 coils which are as follows :
- 2,5 centimeter diameter (a plumber plastic should be around this and work even at 3 or 4 centimeter).
- 0.5 mm to 2 mm width for the wire
- 54 to 57 turns.
inductance : around 157 uF.

get 3 "100 pF" capacitors.

II. put all those in series :
x capacitor>coil>capacitor>coil>capacitor>coil y

III. send a SQUARE frequency of 863 KHZ at 11 to 15 volts at x and y points.
the frequency can be approximately deduced from well established formulaes, for instance :
https://goodcalculators.com/resonant-frequency-calculator/

IV. put a 100 V bulb anywhere across several points in this circuit, for instance on x and y .
it lights brigthly : voltage has been mutiplied by a factor of around X7, so a Q=7, so a 700% factor multiplier for voltage.

V. remark : the amperage stays the same.

You may now Thank Rick Friedrich for creating this kit in hommage to Don Smith, which I highly recommend to buy (100 USD).
 
Key words : Tesla, resonance , Tesla lecture 1893, high frequency, Rick Friedrich, resonance coupling, overunity, voltage multiplication, amperage multiplication.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on April 30, 2019, 01:22:20 AM
'i highlighted it in green I was trying to find out how Itsu got his 90 deg phase shift.
Then found that and thought that can't be right. then tried to reverse logic what that Rick F
was up to and got really confused.

Feel free to delete both posts  :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on April 30, 2019, 08:07:01 AM
Make resonant circuit with parametric pumping input frequency and the method of converting output to very high frequency. That way OU is real I think.
https://hackaday.com/2019/04/26/parametric-amplifiers-and-varactors/
I spotted this effect in 2005 with the room filled with electrostatic response from all metals. The proper grounding then makes current flow outside of the wires. In fact Tesla said it in plain sight in his interview. I believe Barbosa and Leal perfected Tesla method but we won't know due to cryptic patent text (like always).

Quote
"That was in 1891, prior to my going to England to lecture before the scientific societies there, the Royal Institution and the Institution of Electrical Engineers.   I had a wire run out through the window, and placed on the roof all sorts of devices to constitute this capacity [shown in the diagrams as an elevated square].   The first step was to connect this alternator [shown in the diagrams as a circle] with one terminal to the water pipe system and the other end to the antenna.   I had already proved in my lecture at Columbia College that I could transmit energy through one wire; therefore, I was prepared to find that a current of considerable strength could be passed through this wire here [connecting the alternator to the elevated capacitor], although it was insulated.   My idea at that time was that I would disturb the electrical equilibrium in the nearby portions of the earth, and the equilibrium being disturbed, this could then be utilized to bring into operation in any way some instrument.   That was what we would now call, simply, impressing forced vibrations of very high frequency on an antenna.   We have introduced the term "antenna" since that time. . . ."
[/font][/size]
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on April 30, 2019, 10:51:51 AM
benfr,not to think about C.O.P. the simplest question here is :

how many lumen per Watts or Watth can be reached ?! Using a lamp as "output"-indicator

For example :    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M3YWB-noPNo (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M3YWB-noPNo)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=homZvbKZHlU (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=homZvbKZHlU)

Comparison and confirmation : better, as same, worser



One -from my view - most important parameter- for usefull output :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_cycle (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_cycle)
 we have to differ peak from average power input : power on/ off timing
What we are doing and in re-/search :
       from net-grid to off-/ extra-grid controls :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_demand_(electric_power)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_response
negative power factor and positive power factor balancing
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 30, 2019, 11:53:15 AM
Overunity which is a misnomer, (better use efficiency or COP),

I totally agree, and I prefer to use the term COP = 7 generally speaking.
With that already, there is plenty of room to play for me... ;D

You think that the results I am pointing this forum at are irrelevant regarding calculations you mention. But I do not need those calculations, Gyula.
My purpose is not to measure everything. It is to make a use of one little thing : voltage amplification and amperage conservation.
I do not care about the other parameters because they are not needed to power my light with free voltage lovingly offered.

First anyway, I wish to thank you for taking the time to explain your view and calculations. It is respectable.
I believe it can help some people more in the know and understanding than I am capable of, on this very forum.
My purpose is not to understand , it is to show working COP > 1 machines that work as the exploration of God's Secrets and Unlimited Love show are everywhere for us to look and pick and say Thank You.

The article https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-resonance.html
states in plain sight voltage amplification :
' The result of this is that the magnitudes of the voltages across the inductor, L and the capacitor, C can become many times larger than the supply voltage'
In effect this theory is real because not only we observe it, but we can POWER A LOAD OFF THIS AMPLIFICATION OF VOLTAGE !

You state : "Try to estimate how much power your neon bulb consumes."
I don't need to ! I know my input with my frequency generator ! it's 5 watts and it doesn't budge.
So your knowledge is of great value, and much greater than my own, thanks for sharing it.

Itsu "I wish it would be that simple, but besides voltage, current and power, there are also things like phase, real power, reactive power, etc.":
I understand you itsu.
Tell me one thing : when you read a book at night, do you need to know the phase value ? Or is a lighted bulb enough for you ? It if it not enough, then I guess this forum and this thread may not fulfill your expectations. For this you have also schools, universities, and experience.
You say you wish that was so simple ? I have no idea if it is. From what you are exposing it seems it is not that simple, in effect...
To convince yourself of the simplicity , please show us your frequency generator and please light your NE2 bulb without the little additions I introduced.
Where has the light gone if it disappeared ? BTW congratulations again for taking the time to fabricate a similar setup and sharing it.

Now let us look carefully once again at this machine.
I now what is the input of the frequency generator and it does not change. Right ? Its consumption is 5 watts.
I can measure the current if I need. But I don't need that because I trust it is unchanged on the paper & theory. It could be checked though - why not go that way even if I have already accepted the answer that it doesn't move - but why someone does not build it and share his work here. I may provide this information later, when I get back for further pleasures on this...
I have also tried to power that bulb driectly from it and IT DOES NOT LIGHT UP even when it is pushed at its max (20 V), while I can power it at 8.7 V with my 3-coils system added to it.

I am not confused with theory and practice, because I am lighting a system that cannot do that by itself ! And without the use of this little addition to the system, you already said you waited without never ever glowing that NE2...and with reason ! Change the frequency to 1.1 MHZ and let us know what happens.
Are you still able to light your bulb ?

Top of the cake, this experience is the exact definition of real, free energy ! It's free because I only have done a little modification to the system, static, not consuming anything, without inputting anything more , and now it powers my room for real that it couldn't the minute earlier. It is visible and comes from apparently nowhere ! That's my definition of free energy.

This forum, I believe, is for real people looking for real solutions, which is what I have been offered by you know who and that I feel the usefulness to share.
Next time, I will show you AMPERAGE MULTIPLICATION.

lanIV "how many lumen per Watts or Watth can be reached ?! Using a lamp as "output"-indicator" => you are RIGHT. Lumen is to me another way to look at the same energy mutiplication by the secret of the universe
In this case, COP = 8 laid down (from zero lumen to a few, sort of candlelight++ as you can imagine from the photos).

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 30, 2019, 11:54:39 AM
forest  ' spotted this effect in 2005 with the room' => interesting post
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on April 30, 2019, 12:11:57 PM
Charging the lamp with 'static voltage + displacement current' would mean to reach the " ( cold) fusion circuit" :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19900201&CC=DE&NR=3817730A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19900201&CC=DE&NR=3817730A1&KC=A1#)


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/14/tiny-nuclear-reactions-inside-compact-fluorescent-bulbs/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/14/tiny-nuclear-reactions-inside-compact-fluorescent-bulbs/)

 Instead " solar": photo-voltaic later including phono-voltaic ( combined : thermionic channeling)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Not overunity,  work C. O. P. optimizer, but eta<1                     Instead 100W peak power only 4+8= 12 Watt average consume

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5130608A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19920714&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 30, 2019, 12:30:58 PM
Hi benfr,

On every forum like this on alternative energy, COP is not considered to arrive at by comparing input voltage or current to output voltage or current. Why do you disregard this? 
COP estimation is based on input power (average or real) compared to output power (also average or real).

IF you do not consider this, your devices will also be disregarded as COP > 1 performers.

If your frequency generator gives out 5W to your circuit and then you drive a neon bulb from your circuit, what efficiency does it mean?

 Why do not you care about common sense: you invest 5W to light up a neon bulb which normally consumes in the range from hundred microwatts up to some milliwatt power. This does not make sense.
And even if you drive LED lamps from the output of each receiver unit, you can only state your setup works as COP > 1 system if and only if you make sure by measurements that the sum of the power levels the LED lamps actually draw exceeds your 5W input from the frequency generator. 

It is not enough you say you use a 3W, a 4W and say a 5W rated LED lamp and bingo you have got 3+4+5=12W output power, hence your COP is 12W/5W = 2.4   This would be total nonsense and most unscientific.  The input power actually used by LED lamps cannot be estimated by the naked eye.
Why I feel you are pulling our legs?

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 30, 2019, 12:42:18 PM

Hi Benfr,

as Gyula already mentioned, a NE-2 bulb only lights up with voltage applied at 75V and higher.
So it is not that hard to understand that a FG with 20Vpp is unable to light it up as we are 55V short.

If my FG was able to provide 100Vpp it would be able to light it up even without your 3-coil system.

So we need some device/circuit to increase the voltage to that 75V.
Your 3 coil system is able to boost up the voltage to do so, so is the mentioned joule thief etc.
No magic there.


But i see you are happy with what you have and that is good, enjoy it.
Also the readers of this thread are now aware of your ideas and solutions of free energy.


Regards Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 30, 2019, 12:53:19 PM
Hi forest,

When you convert say a low frequency input to high frequency by parametric pumping with the use of a varactor diode for instance, the voltage or current "amplification" takes places in resonant LC circuits but overall input to output power (or energy) ratio remains under 1. 

I do not get how you connect this with "the room filled with electrostatic response from all metals",   how would you utilize "current flow outside of the wires"  when grounding the metals? 
How do you think the input power needed to create the strong EM field compares to the power created by the current flow in your chosen load? Why would output be higher than input in this case I wonder (near field radiation or excitation).

You quoted Tesla tests on single wire power transfer: how it is connected to parametric amplifiers?  He was in the process of finding means to transfer energy first via a single wire where the 'second wire' was the total enviroment (capacitive bodies, 'devices') to make up for a closed circuit. He surely disturbed the local physical enviroment in the vicinity of the single wire but we do not know whether the enviroment gave back more than what he fed into the wire, and without measurements it would be just dreaming he received back more.

Also, unfortunately, none of the scientific papers which dealt with parametric oscillators/devices proves with measurements done on the built prototypes that output (power or energy) exceeded the input (power or energy) versus the input. 

Here are the papers I mean: http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Mandelstam_Papalexi/  but there are more of course.

But all this should not discourage you, please continue doing tests as you desire. 

Gyula

Make resonant circuit with parametric pumping input frequency and the method of converting output to very high frequency. That way OU is real I think.
https://hackaday.com/2019/04/26/parametric-amplifiers-and-varactors/ (https://hackaday.com/2019/04/26/parametric-amplifiers-and-varactors/)
I spotted this effect in 2005 with the room filled with electrostatic response from all metals. The proper grounding then makes current flow outside of the wires. In fact Tesla said it in plain sight in his interview. I believe Barbosa and Leal perfected Tesla method but we won't know due to cryptic patent text (like always).


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on April 30, 2019, 12:58:07 PM
"lamps" as indicators :

Voltage diminuation and power effect :
https://m.phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html (https://m.phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html)
 1/2 Voltage means 1/4 power input but only 1/2 light power output diminuation : 200% gain performance

Eigen-/Spin frequency of the material


Also more for academical interests only , the performance result :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20041118&CC=WO&NR=2004100349A1&KC=A1#

how many lumen and heat output by 10/20/30 ...... identical lamp serie ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on April 30, 2019, 01:23:12 PM
Hello Gyula,

https://www.google.com/search?q=f.+braun+mandelstam&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=f.+braun+mandelstam&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)

Question : which was https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Braun (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Braun) his " energy scheme" ,           

        whose accepted by Mandelstam ? + Papalexy:  parametric generator

Ate logo
OCWL
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 30, 2019, 01:44:12 PM
Why I feel you are pulling our legs?

Gyula

This impression ceases when you stop looking elsewhere than where you are asked to. Ask itsu, he has the setup that you dare not build, so far has he also not been able to power his NE2 without my setup. :P
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on April 30, 2019, 02:12:58 PM
https://www.google.com/search?q=ne-2+lamp+voltage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=ne-2+lamp+voltage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)
NE-2 : VDC 90 Design current 0,3 mA ( Farnell data)

                                                               
                                                         ergo starter input power                                                                 

                                                                         0,027 VA

                                          with Voltage drop down to average 0,02 VA input

                                                 benfr, this is the energetic demonstration level !
( Without calculating and measurement from peak and average inrush voltage and/ or inrush current)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 30, 2019, 02:13:06 PM
Hi Bastien,
Sorry but I already wrote to you (but you disregard it  :P ) that there have been several other people who operate neon lamps from very low input voltages, why should I build such circuit you refer to when it needs a function generator etc? 
Here I quote from my earlier post on circuits you can also build and get rid of the use of a generator:

"a neon bulb like you use (NE-2 type) does not need an expensive kit to make it light up, 
just build a Joule thief oscillator and take say an 1.2 volt battery and the bulb will be lit nicely with them.
Here is a 4 minute long video showing it in action: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxIXESkS3I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxIXESkS3I)

The circuit can work from even a discharged battery that has about 0.84 VDC only and you can see input voltage amplified
up well over 100 volts shown on the oscilloscope.
Here is another Joule thief for operating a neon bulb:
https://www.instructables.com/id/high-voltage-joule-thief/ (https://www.instructables.com/id/high-voltage-joule-thief/) 

If you have some more time, this video includes several Joule thiefs including neon bulb: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQqAP_tyEqg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQqAP_tyEqg)  "         

In fact, the oscillator circuits (known among the tinkerers as Joule thiefs) substitute your signal generator and they use much less input power.   

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 30, 2019, 02:54:36 PM



Sorry but I already wrote to you ()but you disregard it) that there have been several other people who operate neon lamps from very low input voltages, why should I build such circuit you refer to when it needs a function generator etc? 
Here I quote from my earlier post on circuits you can also build and get rid of the use of a generator:

ok, Guyla, I think I understand your point. Your examples are fine, I didn't know them. Thanks for letting me know. They could be very useful for me also.
I understand you do not have a freq gen, hence...
So to answer you...it is not a problem to substitute another load instead of the NE2 : I can check what I have and you'll have to wait if I don't.
I have, though, experienced the same amplification with 4 V LEDs with a 1 V input .
We can think of any other load ; if you have suggestions, please offer them.


https://www.google.com/search?q=ne-2+lamp+voltage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=ne-2+lamp+voltage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)
NE-2 : VDC 90 Design current 0,3 mA ( Farnell data)   ergo starter input power                                                                 0,027 VA
   with Voltage drop down to average 0,02 VA input

benfr, this is the energetic demonstration level !

thanks for taking a look !
one step at a time Sir. here I have not stated yet that the whole machine including the freq gen is OU... yet. That's what I'm showing for the circuit inside although you may reproach me not to have yet measured amperage there. Don't worry for that now, if you're kind and patient, God will provide for your wildest dreams right here on this forum. :p
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on April 30, 2019, 04:19:47 PM
benfr,you do not need to state but has to follow the NE-2 industrial numbers as fact :

at start 0,027 later 0,02  Volt-Ampere DC under full load condition
 the Neon lamp  consumes for measureable stable  lumen output.

With 50 Neon lamps  NE-2 connected under full load condition this gives 1 Volt-Ampere per hour or ~ 1 Wh load charge need.
                                                                   
                                                                            DC versus( pulsedDC) AC :


                               AC less Voltage need, Amperage  with AC ? With pulsed DC = modified AC ?

                                                                             With feedback cycle ?

                                                                 lumen output power recuperation ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 30, 2019, 05:30:41 PM
Hi a.king21,

Would like to ask you whether you are aware of the received power levels quantitatively at the output of each receiver module? LED lamps (say with 3 to 5 W data sheet ratings) are surely lit but actually how much power drives them is not shown as measured, this is why I ask.

It is ok that performing such measurements is not easy (instruments are in the vicinity of the strong EM near field of the single transmitter coil). Perhaps Using a full wave diode bridge across the AC output of each receiver modul and say the use of 100 or 220 uF puffer capacitors to filter the diode's DC output would help: this DC output then could drive a known resistor load across which just a DC voltage level check would be needed. 
The value of these resistors could be calculated like this: if the shown LED lamps were say 12V and say 3W rated, then their equivalent resistance were (12 x 12) / 3 = 48 Ohm, ok? (use a 47 Ohm, at least 2W rated ones). This is the load any such LED lamp (12V, 3W) would represent towards any 12V voltage source when the source is able to maintain the 12V voltage level.  For other LED lamps the same calculation can be used to learn what actual load they represent when fed by their specified voltage.

Obviously, if the voltage level is say 11V or 9.5V or less, the consumed power by this LED becomes less and less too, LED lamps are non linear loads. However, the actual DC power dissipated in a resistor can immediately be known by a simple DC level test across the resistor. If you find say only 10V across a 47 Ohm resistor, then the consumed power would be (10x10)/47=2.1W and so on.  Notice that a 2V less input voltage (wrt 12V) results in almost 1W less power draw.

For diode bridges,  the cheap UF4007 fast Si diodes are fine, especially if each diode in the bridge is made of two paralleled ones, to reduce overall voltage drop across the bridges.Or use Shottky diodes to make the bridges to reduce voltage loss further on.

This way, by summing up the DC power levels in the resistors across each receiver output, and checking the DC input to the transmitter coil driver IC, a fair comparison of the input and output powers can be obtained. 
Are you aware of any such tests done on a single transmitter, multiple receiver modul setup?

Could you do such tests if you have such kit? This is the only way to arrive at any performance evaluation.
If truth is important, that is.
I am not trying to nit-pick with you or anyone else, even a 'mere' COP = 1.5 result would be fantastic, not to mention anything higher, like a COP 144 claim. Do you agree?

Thanks, Gyula

Gyula,

concerning your writing in this post above, what would be the preferred setup for the coils, vertical like in the
below picture or horizontal which i understand from Rick's video?

Planning to drive the center coil (transmitter coil) directly from my FG (initially) with a 47pF series cap. and
the 5 receiver coils each with a 100pF series trimmer cap. to the by you suggested FWBR, 220uF puffer cap and a good known resistor.

 
Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on April 30, 2019, 06:09:23 PM
Gyula,

concerning your writing in this post above, what would be the preferred setup for the coils, vertical like in the
below picture or horizontal which i understand from Rick's video?

Planning to drive the center coil (transmitter coil) directly from my FG (initially) with a 47pF series cap. and
the 5 receiver coils each with a 100pF series trimmer cap. to the by you suggested FWBR, 220uF puffer cap and a good known resistor.

 
Itsu

Immmmmm..pressive itsu ! Looks like the real beast, almost.
It's good to try and learn. just beware not to touch the coils at any time, in case you spot it right in the first place.
You would like to save you 100's hours by just buying Rick Friedrich's "Don Smith Magnetic Resonance Systematic Index". It has all what you need to replicate a  Don Smith #2. With the kit, also , by the way, if you buy 2 extra coils (same price total). Personally...I have both and I have already stated how valuable this cake is. Make yourself a favor !!! ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 30, 2019, 07:00:45 PM
Hi Itsu,
I think you can stay with the vertical positions as shown in your photo.  Of course no need to fix mechanically the receiver coils, they need to be movable for adjusting coupling.  Many thanks for taking the efforts!

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 30, 2019, 07:12:47 PM
Gyula,

concerning your writing in this post above, what would be the preferred setup for the coils, vertical like in the
below picture or horizontal which i understand from Rick's video?

Planning to drive the center coil (transmitter coil) directly from my FG (initially) with a 47pF series cap. and
the 5 receiver coils each with a 100pF series trimmer cap. to the by you suggested FWBR, 220uF puffer cap and a good known resistor.

 
Itsu




A couple of points. 
A gate driver increases the output massively -  The one recommended is MIC4452YN DRIVER, MOSFET, 12A-PEAK, LOW SIDE.
Not sure why your satellite coils are joined together.  The transmitter should be on the inside which it is.
Your setup actually looks quite brilliant - and is a great basis for making more receiver coils which can be placed directly behind the other receiver coils.  The theory is that each receiver coil will also become magnetically locked to the main transmitter and each receiver coil will re-transmit the signal MAGNETICALLY.(ie Heaviside component - NOT Poynting or Lorenz which is the basis for Kirchhoff's laws.)
The maximum voltage for the gate driver is 9 volts at the over 1mhz frequency range.


If you build the bigger coil it is harder to tune but is at a lower frequency and the gate driver can go up to 18 volts. If you want to build
the bigger coil pm me and I will give you the specs. (You also need 5nf caps in parallel with each receiver coil.)The output for the bigger coil is also massively increased ie 3.75 watts input gives a Heaviside magnetic output equivalent to 900 watts according to the information I  have been given. (I have not replicated it).
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on April 30, 2019, 07:40:17 PM
Hi All.

Despite adding a comment regarding my edit of  a.king21 last post it didn't register.

Mr  a.king21 had managed to place Itsu's " Quote "  after his own making a complete " Blue " post, this has now been corrected.

Cheers Grum.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on April 30, 2019, 07:50:52 PM
gyulasun
Please read few times this little fragment of Tesla interview. There is something weird which is overlooked easily...or my English is very bad and I didn't understood what Tesla said.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on April 30, 2019, 08:30:42 PM
Hi forest,
Here is the 'enviroment' (I mean full) text from Tesla with the Figures:  http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm#Section_2

Please feel free to quote the sentence or sentences which sound weird for you and I will try to comment how I interpret it, ok? 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on April 30, 2019, 09:46:19 PM

Thanks for the comments.

The TX coil will be fixed in the middle on a PCB which already will have the gate driver installed for later tests
(I have IXDD614DPI drivers 14A).

The 5 RX coils will also be on a PCB but slideable.

The picture above was a quick setup which had still 2 coils attached to each other via a cap, this will be removed.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on April 30, 2019, 09:57:38 PM
a.king21,#327:
bigger coil with 3,75 Watt electric input and claimed 900 Watt (EMF) output

Such an electromagnet would change the energy market ! Inductive heating and to electricity conversion !
Do you will publish your information ?

Sincerely
OCWL
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 30, 2019, 10:45:15 PM
a.king21,#327:
bigger coil with 3,75 Watt electric input and claimed 900 Watt (EMF) output

Such an electromagnet would change the energy market ! Inductive heating and to electricity conversion !
Do you will publish your information ?

Sincerely
OCW
It's in Rick's video, but you have to understand it is not my process.  We have to do things step by step. Then there comes a point of general comprehension, which is like a point of no return. Everything becomes obvious at that point.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 30, 2019, 11:28:20 PM
The importance of the gate driver:  The innovation by Rick is in the gate driver, because it causes a more disruptive discharge.  The disruptive discharge is  something which Tesla championed.  In this case it produces a larger magnetic field.
The difference is without the gate driver and  with the  frequency generator that has 20V PP you only get 250V PP on the transmitter coil, but 1300V with the gate driver @ 9V. So the gate driver dramatically increases the gains because of the fast rate of change.
This happens at  resonance of course, and you can see the increase on the scope shots.
The purpose of the disruptive discharge is to increase the rate of change.
The gate driver consumes about 1/4 watt at 9 volts.


At 34 minutes Rick starts to introduce the gate driver:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik)
Look at 1:10:40 for a further gain with the big coil:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik)[/size]
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on April 30, 2019, 11:55:09 PM

The bulbs  Rick uses are 3 to 10 watt 12 volt mr16 led bulbs:


ie


https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=mr16&_sacat=0 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=mr16&_sacat=0)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 01, 2019, 12:36:12 AM
a.king21,
Would like to ask whether the gate driver is driven with sine wave or square wave by the function generator?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on May 01, 2019, 01:45:32 AM
a.king21,
Would like to ask whether the gate driver is driven with sine wave or square wave by the function generator?
Square wave.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on May 01, 2019, 12:28:10 PM
Gyula
1. "  My idea at that time was that I would disturb the electrical equilibrium in the nearby portions of the earth, and the equilibrium being disturbed, this could then be utilized to bring into operation in any way some instrument" 

My understanding : my instrument should be able to disturb local Earth potential and make difference which can be utilized (power some other instruments) - the idea is to tap external energy
2. "I had already proved in my lecture at Columbia College that I could transmit energy through one wire; therefore, I was prepared to find that a current of considerable strength could be passed through this wire here [connecting the alternator to the elevated capacitor], although it was insulated. "
My understanding: the first part is utterly misleading (everybody thought he tried to move current inside the single wire ) but he is ONLY explaining that he can move charge in environment around because Earth is like single wire )of immense diameter) - the second part mach the previous text : "although it was insulated" - that part makes no sense if the charge is inside wire or insulated is elevated capacitor - because that is natural way to insulate electrical circuit to avoid looses.  So why he mentioned this ? Because he was about to move charges from the ground to the elevated capacitance or rather to the antenna. Energy from outside flow around the circuit - that's the only explanation I could find.
Now maybe I'm wrong, Tesla notes are very subtle and the real meaning seems deep hidden below the simple explanation, but after reading a lot some parts just start to do not match this simple explanation.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 01, 2019, 02:02:56 PM
Hi a.king21,

Thanks for the answer. It was a blank question test whether you are willing to consider my posts at all because in the last couple of days you have avoided answers for my questions.

You wrote:
Quote
The importance of the gate driver:  The innovation by Rick is in the gate driver, because it causes a more disruptive discharge.  The disruptive discharge is  something which Tesla championed.  In this case it produces a larger magnetic field.
The difference is without the gate driver and  with the  frequency generator that has 20V PP you only get 250V PP on the transmitter coil, but 1300V with the gate driver @ 9V. So the gate driver dramatically increases the gains because of the fast rate of change.
This happens at  resonance of course, and you can see the increase on the scope shots.
The purpose of the disruptive discharge is to increase the rate of change. 

Well, the disruptive discharge is not correct to use here as an explanation for the increased (1300 V or higher) voltage level at resonance. 
It is okay that the output of the gate driver excites the series LC circuit with square wave, it can surely be considered as a very fast switch.
However, you (or Rick) forget to consider the teaching of the Tesla's patent "Coil for electromagnets". i.e. in plain English, in an LC circuit
the input current (having the same frequency as that of the resonant one of the LC circuit) finds no any resistance (to enter and flow) other than that of the wire resistance of the coil.  So there is no for instance the usual inductive "kick back" you find when pulsing a coil and when no resonance is involved.
But this fact would not provide a larger magnetic field (hence voltage increase) in itself, something else insures that. There is nothing fancy,  there is a normal explanation for that.
I would wait with the answer and leave to you to find it.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 01, 2019, 02:58:51 PM
a.king21, I have to thank you for the further information given by #333 and #334 reply !

So this is the same information source and technical design like benfr is referring.

So now the statement "900W" magnetic field force is based by electric  " 1300 V x ?" discharge  !

Excitated surge power with short duty cycle
Okay !

Sincerely
OCWL







Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 01, 2019, 10:41:21 PM

I completed a prototype for a receiver and the transmitter, see picture

The receiver has the 163uH coil, a 100pF trimmer cap, 4x bat46 schottky diodes as FWBR, a bidi 220uF buffer cap and
a 50 Ohm 1% inductionfree resistor (load).

The transmitter has a 163uH coil, an empty socket for a future gate driver, 2x 100pF in series (50pF) cap and is
driven now by my FG.

FG is set to resonance (1.578Khz) square wave 50% duty cycle, pulsed DC (like a gate driver would) and the screenshot shows:

Blue is the the input voltage (5Vpp DC)
Green is the input current
purple is the voltage across the 50pF cap
Red is the math trace (blue x green = input voltage x input current)
 
The DMM is across the 50 Ohm load and shows 244mV.

So we have 25.6mW input, and the output across the receiver shows 1.2mW  (P=U²/R  =0.244²/50 = 1.2mW)

Moving the receiver closer increases its output, but effects the transmitter resonance frequency.

Will build 4 additional receivers now.

Regards Itsu


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 01, 2019, 11:24:42 PM
Hi itsu,

Thanks for showing the details on the measurements.
Would like to ask the DC resistance of both the transmitter and the receiver coils when you have time to check them. 

Yes, it is normal that the receiver coil detunes the transmitter coil and vice versa, especially when you will have
all the 5 receiver coils. You will need to fine tune all the trimmer caps a little whenever you change on the distances
between TX-RX coils. In fact, you would need a fine tuning possibility for the TX LC circuit but maybe with slowly
fine tuning the function generator to the slightly pulled TX LC circuit (pulled by the RX coils whenever distances
are changed), you would not need a trimmer cap there. 
Of course when fine tuning the generator for the TX circuit, the receiver coils need retuning a little again,
a mutual back and forth interaction happens and should be corrected accordingly. On the receiver side
an analog meter will nicely show the voltage maximums instead of a DMM.  I think you know all these.   8)
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 01, 2019, 11:37:56 PM
Hello itsu,

https://www.google.com/search?q=kanarev+pulse+power&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=kanarev+pulse+power&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)
Kanarev showed the problem with pulse power calculation.

Voltage pulse amplitude
Current pulse amplitude

Power pulse amplitude

Pulse duration
Pulse repitition period
Pulse frequency

Duty ratio
Duty factor Z

Average Voltage

Average Amperage

Average power

So the first question : how much real input power ? pulsed P to P = ( UxZ)x(IxZ)     = 25,6 mW ?


Sincerely
OCWL
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 02, 2019, 01:00:58 AM
Of Snakecoils and other things

In the early days of radio, engineers and experimenters figured out fairly quickly

that if you wanted efficient transfer of power, you would need to have excellent

coupling (K approaching 1.0). Minimizing distance between air core coils by nesting

them one in the other co-axially helped to achieve a higher K while separating them reduced K.

Where multiple secondaries were needed, these were also nested co-axially to keep

the coupling factor between coils as high as possible.

Itsu has just demonstrated the effect of a low K transformer, where power transfer

is greatly reduced. Had his coils been nested coaxially, the K factor and coupling

would have improved considerably.

Somehow the idea has crept in due to the inexperience of certain "teachers" that

just adding a lot of coils separated from the primary coils will magically increase

the power transfer. This is not so.

When the words "primary" and "secondary" are substituted for "transmitter" and "receiver"

it becomes obvious what we  have is a common air core transformer with a low K factor.

and thus a large  amount of the mystique is removed.

In an air core transformer with multiple secondaries widely distanced from the

primary you cannot capture more power in the secondaries than is being input

regardless of the certainty of those who teach this. Because of the separation distance and low K,

 much of the primary power will not be useful to the

secondaries, and this is normally termed leakage inductance by engineers.

Also being espoused by the new "teachers" is that you need to resonate the secondaries to get the voltage to

increase. You may do this, but when you then place on the secondaries a useful

load, you wind up collapsing the high voltage that was created in resonance, killing

the Q of the resonant tank. The high resonance voltage is greatly reduced due to the

fact that power is delivered out of the resonant system at the same rate it is being

input, so there is little to nothing left for the resonant system to work with to

store energy and build a high voltage.

 Loads that only require milliwatts such as super bright LED's or neons only lightly

load the secondaries and serve to fool many in place of the accurate primary and

secondary power measurements needed to be done with good equipment. The cry we hear

is "see how many led's I can light on all my little coils with only one transmitting

coil" but no real measurements are performed.

Thank you Itsu, for your actual power measurement  clearly demonstrates that the separation distance

 that creates  poor coupling (low K) greatly reduces power transfer in an ordinary air core transformer,

regardless of the resonant tuning of such. BTW, this fairly accurately agrees with simulations of the same.

Regards

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 02, 2019, 07:36:27 AM
Questions:

The blue input voltage signal ITSU shows is not a square signal.

1) Why do we use a Square Wave input in this experiment  and  not a Sinus Wave?
       Resonant circuits can only handle one frequency at a time and that is even more valid when using coupled circuits tuned to the same frequency.
       That's how radio receivers selects different radio stations from each other.

2) From this:
 http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1374896&seqNum=7
We can assume that the ITSU  first harmonic (resonance 1.578Khz) is weaker than the (square) 5Volt p-p.

quote: "For example, an ideal square wave with 50% duty-cycle and 0 v to 1 v transition has a first harmonic amplitude of 0.63 v."

ITSU 5Volt p-p >  5x 0.63 V ( Nota Bene; ideal)  =3.15V    ( RMS or p-p ???)


Vortex1 (all)
3) Does the the coupling factors or total energy transfer  be different  in this case maybe because we use a transmission (coupling) from
the coil part in a series resonance circuit (gen.)  to a parallel resonance circuit

  compared with (common radio)  parallel resonance circuit coupled to a parallel resonance circuit(s) ??

My guess is that they are equivalent

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on May 02, 2019, 10:02:41 AM
Excellent post Vortex1.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 02, 2019, 10:06:51 AM
If you want to build
the bigger coil pm me and I will give you the specs. (You also need 5nf caps in parallel with each receiver coil.)

Hi king-o-reso ! I am interested on the specs you mention. In particular the gate driver, which I have right there before me but I'm unusre of the soldering so the schematics to be able to rebuild one one day. Could share them may be privately if you find it more relevant ?
Thanks a lot !!
Yours sincerely,
Benfr
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 02, 2019, 10:31:58 AM
So #344 related :

Mutual inductance

Coupling factor or coefficient K

Turns ratio

The K factor easy demonstrated : the attraction/ repulsion force between two permanent or electric magnets                                               
                                                                             dependent from their distance

Why and how shall the device generate surplus power?  Mathematically and physically. ?
How do we treat " inrush" , like a resistanceless superconduction. ? Inrush pulsation  !

Using lamps as indicator :
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFlimmerverschmelzungsfrequenz
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 02, 2019, 10:53:29 AM

Gyula,

The DC resistance of my coils are 1.5 Ohm.
Its gonna be fun then tuning the 6 coils for max. performance  :o
By the way, the frequency is of course 1.578Mhz, not 1.578Khz.


LancaIV

Quote
So the first question : how much real input power ? pulsed P to P = ( UxZ)x(IxZ)     = 25,6 mW ?
I let my scope calculate the instantaneous power over the signals (voltage/current) it receives, should be OK.


Vortex1,

thanks for the info/comments, they are appreciated.
Lets see what happens when adding the additional coils.


Seaad,

The blue signal is originally a square wave, but gets distorted by the resonance it encounters.
We need a sharp on/off time of the pulse for the magic to happen it seems, so a sine wave would not do that.


Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 02, 2019, 11:15:28 AM
https://www.edn.com/design/test-and-measurement/4417651/Product-How-To--Calculate-power-with-a-scope-- (https://www.edn.com/design/test-and-measurement/4417651/Product-How-To--Calculate-power-with-a-scope--)
So does the scope calculate !
 


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 02, 2019, 12:52:07 PM
Hi forest,

We are off topic here, so I apologize from all the members here.

1) I agree that Tesla wanted to disturb the 'electrical equilibrium' near and or in the vicinity of his antenna but I do not know whether he expected to tap the external energy higher than the amount he invested as the input for disturbing. What you quoted from him in this 1st paragraph, it refers already to his wireless energy transfer tests. I think once he mentioned efficiency obtainable in energy transfer through the Earth as 94%-95% or around that.   
 

2) Well, in the text you quote from him, he refers back to his single wire energy transfer tests where he found that high currents went through the wire i.e. it was capable to transfer high current. Note that in case of the single wire transfer, the remote end of this single wire must have been connected to the receiver means while the 2nd wire was the Earth. And his next step was to get rid of the single wire too, hence the wireless energy transfer test came. And doing the wireless tests he expected to transfer also high currents via the antenna wire, the top of which had "all short of devices [attached] to constitute the capacity" and even though all this elevated structure was insulated, the energy transfer took place -- this is how I understand here his text. On elevated structure I mean a certain lenght of wire with capacitive end loading, driven from an AC generator and the other terminal of the generator was grounded. These tests was leading him eventually to the magnifying transmitter. He wanted to disturb the Earth natural resonant frequency which is around 11.6 Hz (cannot recall the decimal exactly but not the Schumann resonance!) and then the oscillating Earth could feed receivers built on many points on the surface.   

Gyula

Gyula
1. "  My idea at that time was that I would disturb the electrical equilibrium in the nearby portions of the earth, and the equilibrium being disturbed, this could then be utilized to bring into operation in any way some instrument" 

My understanding : my instrument should be able to disturb local Earth potential and make difference which can be utilized (power some other instruments) - the idea is to tap external energy
2. "I had already proved in my lecture at Columbia College that I could transmit energy through one wire; therefore, I was prepared to find that a current of considerable strength could be passed through this wire here [connecting the alternator to the elevated capacitor], although it was insulated. "
My understanding: the first part is utterly misleading (everybody thought he tried to move current inside the single wire ) but he is ONLY explaining that he can move charge in environment around because Earth is like single wire )of immense diameter) - the second part mach the previous text : "although it was insulated" - that part makes no sense if the charge is inside wire or insulated is elevated capacitor - because that is natural way to insulate electrical circuit to avoid looses.  So why he mentioned this ? Because he was about to move charges from the ground to the elevated capacitance or rather to the antenna. Energy from outside flow around the circuit - that's the only explanation I could find.
Now maybe I'm wrong, Tesla notes are very subtle and the real meaning seems deep hidden below the simple explanation, but after reading a lot some parts just start to do not match this simple explanation.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 02, 2019, 01:09:15 PM

This is what my Spectrum Analyzer picks up on harmonics with a probe near by the TX coil.
First with the square wave signal,
second with a sine wave signal:


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 02, 2019, 02:11:04 PM
Of Snakecoils and other things
....
In an air core transformer with multiple secondaries widely distanced from the
primary you cannot capture more power in the secondaries than is being input
regardless of the certainty of those who teach this. Because of the separation distance and low K,
 much of the primary power will not be useful to the
secondaries, and this is normally termed leakage inductance by engineers.
...
Also being espoused by the new "teachers" is that you need to resonate the secondaries to get the voltage to
increase. You may do this, but when you then place on the secondaries a useful
load, you wind up collapsing the high voltage that was created in resonance, killing
the Q of the resonant tank. The high resonance voltage is greatly reduced due to the
fact that power is delivered out of the resonant system at the same rate it is being
input, so there is little to nothing left for the resonant system to work with to
store energy and build a high voltage.
....
Thank you Itsu, for your actual power measurement  clearly demonstrates that the separation distance
 that creates  poor coupling (low K) greatly reduces power transfer in an ordinary air core transformer,
regardless of the resonant tuning of such. BTW, this fairly accurately agrees with simulations of the same.
...


Hi Vortex1,

Thanks for your post, I also agree with all you wrote.  I quoted only the most revelant sentences, to see them again. 

Anybody is free to prove COP > 1 performance in this setup by showing correct measurements if he does not agree with the thoughts expressed in Vortex1's text. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 02, 2019, 03:38:52 PM
It seems there was a small typo error in Itsu's post #341

Quote
FG is set to resonance (1.578Khz) square wave 50% duty cycle, pulsed DC (like a gate driver would) and the screenshot shows:

Should this have read 1.578 MHz? As the later spectrum analyzer shots seem to verify it is 1.583MHz approximately, not kHz.

Edit: This has been addressed in post #349, which I missed.

These variable coupling transformers are "loosely related" to "loose couplers"

For more information on loose coupler transformers see here:

http://www.sparkmuseum.com/COUPLERS.HTM (http://www.sparkmuseum.com/COUPLERS.HTM)

http://peeblesoriginals.com/ppp/loosecoupler-radio.php (http://peeblesoriginals.com/ppp/loosecoupler-radio.php)

Coupling in these air core transformers can be high (tight) when the coils are nested and low (loose) when they are separated, hence the name.

Thanks to those that have approved my earlier "long winded" dissertation.

May I go out on a strong limb and predict that more power will not be available on multiple resonant secondaries than is input to the primary.

Prove this is wrong with accurate measurement by those who believe otherwise.

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 02, 2019, 03:49:39 PM
Vortex1,
Itsu made already a correction on the frequency in his post #349,  line 4. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 02, 2019, 03:52:49 PM
Vortex1,
Itsu made already a correction on the frequency in his post #349,  line 4.

And so he has. I  apparently missed seeing the correction. I did an edit on my post in that regard. Thank you.

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on May 02, 2019, 10:22:16 PM
Forgive me for asking... but is there some reason you aren't using autoresonating drivers for your transmitters? A phase-locked loop, or an E-field antenna trigger, or even an autoresonating LC tank like a Royer or Mazilli oscillator? It seems rather strange to me to be using a FG for the primary clock, unless there is something really specific about a particular frequency that is being tested -- and if that's the case you should be using a crystal oscillator. If you really start getting good high voltage performance you may find your function generator doesn't like it very much. (By good HV I mean tens of kV at least. A couple kV is child's play when you are talking about Tesla's systems.)
But carry on, have fun. But you might actually like to view my wireless power transmission videos, especially the last few TinselKoil vids. I'm not selling anything!


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 02, 2019, 10:25:01 PM

I completed the 2th RX and added the gate driver (IXDD614) on the TX, see picture.

With 9V on the driver and tuned to resonance (1.627Mhz now) with the FG (3Vpp pulsed DC 50% duty cycle)
i have the below shown signals see screenshot.

Blue is the input to the gate driver
Purple is the output from the gate driver
Yellow is the signal across the series cap.

I guess some filtering needs to be done.

The tuning with 2 Receivers is already tricky, so let alone with 5.


Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on May 02, 2019, 10:37:53 PM
Heh... at that frequency you are most probably operating in a pure EM mode, so you don't have to worry about "real HV". You may find that you can achieve "supernova mode" close coupling that does not result in a 1/r2 falloff with distance (to a certain limit.) Your receivers seem to be essentially the same as used in my system. The main difference is that I use coils of much lower inductance (and hence less power-wasting in ohmic resistance) and autoresonating drivers, in this case a Royer oscillator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x2YfA9LU5s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x2YfA9LU5s)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 02, 2019, 11:42:36 PM
Tinsel, if it's any help Donald Smith's original device he was selling, I've seen that device he was selling years ago the original 2 coils and an oscillator it was a Royer OSC assembly.

'Anyone' or his mate 'Someone' or 'Someone else' can make there own.  ;D ;D
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 03, 2019, 02:30:19 AM
seaad asked:

Quote
Vortex1 (all)
3) Does the the coupling factors or total energy transfer  be different  in this case maybe because we use a transmission (coupling) from
the coil part in a series resonance circuit (gen.)  to a parallel resonance circuit

  compared with (common radio)  parallel resonance circuit coupled to a parallel resonance circuit(s) ??

My guess is that they are equivalent

Regards Arne

You are correct, they are essentially equivalent. Because of the low output impedance of the signal generator current is basically injected into (by being in series with) the parallel resonant primary circuit.

In common radio tuning circuit, the parallel resonant circuit would provide an impedance match to the antenna and ground which uses to advantage the high impedance at resonance.

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 03, 2019, 11:22:21 AM
Instead of a gate gate driver it's possible to use an impedance transformer
 I see some impedance mismatch at the secondary side too
see my suggestion

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 03, 2019, 12:46:48 PM
Heh... at that frequency you are most probably operating in a pure EM mode, so you don't have to worry about "real HV". You may find that you can achieve "supernova mode" close coupling that does not result in a 1/r2 falloff with distance (to a certain limit.) Your receivers seem to be essentially the same as used in my system. The main difference is that I use coils of much lower inductance (and hence less power-wasting in ohmic resistance) and autoresonating drivers, in this case a Royer oscillator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x2YfA9LU5s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x2YfA9LU5s)

Hi TK,

yes i remember your experiments and the supernova mode.
Did you ever find out for sure what it caused?  (filament resonance?).

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 03, 2019, 12:48:12 PM
Instead of a gate gate driver it's possible to use an impedance transformer
 I see some impedance mismatch at the secondary side too
see my suggestion

Regards Arne


Arne,    you draw a parallel circuit, but i am using a series resonance setup for both RX and TX.
Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 03, 2019, 01:16:06 PM
Low power circuit device :
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/1963
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 03, 2019, 01:22:41 PM
Itsu
Ahaa! Ok. Then you can adjust the output resistor for best power and Q match.

But I assume that the voltage at the output is relatively small (but high Amp ) so You will loose much power in the diode bridge.

For best output match I rceommend a parallel circuit. Connect the bridge across the whole P-circuit and use a load resistor of a much higher value than 50 Ohms.
Now the bridge plus looad is not affecting the result and Q so much.

PS. lancaIV Thumbs up!

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 03, 2019, 02:13:00 PM
Low power circuit device :
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/1963
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 03, 2019, 04:06:34 PM
Dear seaad

Thank you for the nice graph, which clearly shows the difficulty in getting high power transfer and overunity with loosely coupled coils.

Giving your impedance matching scheme some thought, it seems we are always in danger of blowing out the output stage on some of the lower cost generators, regardless of which direct drive scheme is used, current injection without matching transformer the circulating current can get large enough to fry the output stage. With impedance matching transformer, the voltage will get high enough to do damage.

All of this assumes the Q of the resonating system is very high. Better generators will include protection to limit current or clamp voltage.

Also, fortunately the internal 50 Ohm resistor will help to preserve the generator. I sometimes use a small incandescent lamp on the output of the generator for extra protection against over current or an external buffer stage.

FWIW
Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 03, 2019, 05:22:44 PM
Low power circuit device :
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/1963 (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/1963)
Hi lancaIV.

Thanks for the interesting link. 

For those members here who may need some more hints on what the relay resonator does:  its effect is very similar
to the role of using one (or more) antenna elements in a Yagi type antenna for instance. 
Say there is a two element Yagi antenna and a 3rd element is added, this way the antenna gain increases
in the main radiation direction. 
This means that this now 3 element antenna (fed by the same amount of input power) will insure higher field strength 
in the main radiation direction than the 2 element antenna insured previously (measured at the same given distance), 
while radiation will be decreased in most other directions. 

Here are two referenced articles from your link.  In the first link, Figures 12, 13 and 14 include measured 
energy transfer efficiencies.  Full paper text is available for payment only, unfortunately.   
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/General-Analysis-on-the-Use-of-Tesla%27s-Resonators-Zhong-Lee/6e41afe4ff78a0964106f076134b46417f3d7b0d (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/General-Analysis-on-the-Use-of-Tesla%27s-Resonators-Zhong-Lee/6e41afe4ff78a0964106f076134b46417f3d7b0d) 

EDIT: I found almost the same paper from the same authors above, this one is freely available here: 
  https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/37985578.pdf     

Another referenced article discusses several aspects of wireless energy transfer, including efficiency too. 
This quote is useful here:     (WPT=Wireless Power Transfer)
"... Figure 3 shows the transfer efficiency of the different WPT techniques for near and far fields.
The inductive coupling technique achieves an energy transfer efficiency of 70–90%; it decreases with the
distance between primary and secondary coils. To perform such a high efficiency, accurate alignment between
primary and secondary coils is required [57].  Magnetic resonant coupling technique has a medium efficiency of
40–60% and also decays with distance. ..."

Here is the full paper:   
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/7/1022/htm (https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/7/1022/htm)   

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 03, 2019, 09:49:50 PM

I completed the 1 TX and 5 RX coils and put them in an initial setup, see picture below.

I noticed that there is some boundery around the TX in which the 5 RX coils perform maximum and thats at about  3cm distance.

Getting them closer will reduce the combined powers (probably due to the TX resonance (Q) deteriorate), putting
them further away also reduce the combined powers (probably due to loss to distance).

Putting 1 RC coil closer by the TX coil will rapidly increase its power, but the power in the rest of the 4 RX coils will drop.


Rough measurement taken with my PS which only measures the gate driver input shows an input of 540mW:

P=UxI
P=9x0.06
P=540mW

Estimate the FG input to be 20mW, so the total input power will be around 560mW (to be confirmed).


Each RX coil will give about 1V across 51 Ohm, so 19.6mW:

P=U²/R
P=1²/51
P=19.6mW

So the 5 coils together consume 5 x 19.6 = 98mW.

Short video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2eUZOsuycY

I will do some further testing and measurements this weekend.

Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 03, 2019, 10:24:37 PM

Below screenshot shows a better input power measurement.

PS still at 9V, but now showing 0.07A (roughly 630mW).
The 5 voltmeters on the RX's show now in the 1.079 Volt range.

Measuring with the scope:

Purple: input voltage gate driver
green: input current gate driver
red:  math trace purple x green = input power
Blue is the input signal into the gate driver from the FG.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: kolbacict on May 04, 2019, 04:20:06 PM
It turns out, each detector receiver consumes part of the transmitter power?
Will the ammeter switch on a large radio station, swing in a big way if I put on the headphones and adjust the variable capacitor to this frequency?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 04, 2019, 08:16:10 PM
It turns out, each detector receiver consumes part of the transmitter power?
Will the ammeter switch on a large radio station, swing in a big way if I put on the headphones and adjust the variable capacitor to this frequency?


Since you are only using microwatts of the 10kW to 100kW or more being transmitted, it will not be noticeable.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 04, 2019, 09:49:39 PM

Still doing some tests, but i cannot create more ouput in the receiver coils then stated earlier.

What i did notice with my hall sensor probe is that the max. RF coming from the TX coil is at its bottom, so the inverse as from a tesla coil.

The receiver coils are wired up the same way, so i guess they "expect" this max. RF at their bottoms too.
At least when i turn around a receiver coil its output decreases compared with its normal position.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: kolbacict on May 04, 2019, 10:13:53 PM
I understand that imperceptibly. But if there will be a million  or more....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 04, 2019, 10:29:56 PM
I understand that imperceptibly. But if there will be a million  or more....
Hi kolbacict,
What would you do if the man-made energy sources (i.e. radio and tv transmitters) would finish transmitting by any reason?
Where would you take energy from then?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 05, 2019, 12:02:35 AM
Hi kolbacict,
What would you do if the man-made energy sources (i.e. radio and tv transmitters) would finish transmitting by any reason?
Where would you take energy from then?
The same as Morey did the surroundings
J Dove explains here.

but not to me  ;D
good to hear from you.  Also glad to hear your progressing on Nelson's new circuit.  Also, I think the reason you and Nelson got sick was because it's kind of like a electron sucker or vacuum so it Hoover's up all the surrounding electrons from whatever or whoever is in the vicinity.
 When you put on the grounding wrist strap that then allowed the ground to replace the ones you lost so as to restore balance in your body. Maybe the floating ground isn't big enough or try it with a real ground connection.  Is just my thoughts on it as I haven't built it.
Original at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCJU9_yiN-A 

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 05, 2019, 10:52:24 AM
Hi AlienGrey,

The Moray device has been suspected to use radioactive material (I do not know). 

The Nelson circuit sounds to be harmful as per the mail you quoted.

So back to square one, as always. ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 05, 2019, 05:05:53 PM
Hi AlienGrey,The Moray device has been suspected to use radioactive material (I do not know).  The Nelson circuit sounds to be harmful as per the mail you quoted.

So back to square one, as always. ?
Have you ever come across some of these Most Haunted 'places' where torches and video cameras
suddenly become drained 'battery exhausted' and remote voices etc well Moray talks of that sort of goings-on?

Perhaps Moray quotes some strange things happen in his beyond the light document
depending on the frequency used and that's why an earth is required as Dove explains further back in another video on Nelson's replications.
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 05, 2019, 05:24:10 PM
Still doing some tests, but i cannot create more ouput in the receiver coils then stated earlier.

What i did notice with my hall sensor probe is that the max. RF coming from the TX coil is at its bottom, so the inverse as from a tesla coil.

The receiver coils are wired up the same way, so i guess they "expect" this max. RF at their bottoms too.
At least when i turn around a receiver coil its output decreases compared with its normal position.

Itsu
Hi Itsu

Your real world testing agrees with my simulations of your setup in LTSpice.

I won't bother to post the sims as few believe LTSpice simulations anyway, although the sims generally agree very closely with real world bench tests.

Is anyone convinced yet that this idea has no merit as a method to OU? I guess not. It will live on and resurface from time to time with each new generation of snakecoil peddlers.

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 05, 2019, 05:43:42 PM

Hi Vortex1,

thanks for your response, i would like to have your sim if possible so i can tune it to see if i can
improve upon it on the real thing.

Yes the result is kind of disappointing i think.
700mW input versus 100mW output (eff. 14%) is nothing to get enthusiastic over.

Anyway, i tried one last thing with this setup and that is replacing the 50 Ohm
load resistors by 10mm leds.

Perhaps when "seeing the light" will provoke a more enthusiastic response then those
chilling realitycheck input/output calculations did.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej9l0jCiYCE

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on May 05, 2019, 06:11:16 PM
Dear Itsu.

I'd like to thankyou on behalf of all our members for your contributions.

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 05, 2019, 06:20:07 PM

Thanks Graham,

perhaps after the weekend ends some more reactions with usefull hints will appear so i can investigate
somewhat further with this setup.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 05, 2019, 07:16:20 PM
Hi Vortex1,

thanks for your response, i would like to have your sim if possible so i can tune it to see if i can
improve upon it on the real thing.

Yes the result is kind of disappointing i think.
700mW input versus 100mW output (eff. 14%) is nothing to get enthusiastic over.

Anyway, i tried one last thing with this setup and that is replacing the 50 Ohm
load resistors by 10mm leds.

Perhaps when "seeing the light" will provoke a more enthusiastic response then those
chilling realitycheck input/output calculations did.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej9l0jCiYCE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej9l0jCiYCE)

Itsu

Dear Itsu

You will always get a more enthusiastic reception if you can "dazzle the eyeballs" with LED's, and usually lots of them. Then it is possible to inject erroneous ideas while the subject is mesmerized. This is a common device of tricksters.

Now,  I wonder if we know anyone that does that as part of their M.O.?

You can certainly expect a large cadre of individuals to show up and inform you of the correct grade and type of pixie dust that you must sprinkle on your test setup to get the desired OU effect.

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on May 05, 2019, 08:52:15 PM
http://witricity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/White_Paper_20161218.pdf
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 06, 2019, 12:13:21 AM
Itsu good craftmanship!
As this experiment is using a [almost] square  wave input we can first estimate roughly a minimum of 15 -20 percent loss [ see your Spectrum Analyze ] only depending of wasted overtone energy that will never be sucked into the secondary coils if I'm right. The Secondary coils are only tuned to one tone, the first (over)tone.
To check if I'm right. Pls. make a spectrum reading at the point before the diode bridge. But without the diode bridge and with a 50 Ohm load.  Strong first tone and weak (no) overtones.
If you see strong overtones there with similarity to  the primary emission, then I'm wrong. Not enough filtering! Maybe good in your eyes.
See also my previous impedanse matching suggestions.
 If you are able, make some efficiency tests with 3, 4, 5 sec. coils to see and evaluate, predikt if a much greater number of secoday coils maybe will improve the effectiveness.
In my eyes the main issues here are impedanse matching, the primary wave form and LED:s  ::).
If you still belive that the sharp square waveform is a must for the best result then the secondarys have to be constructed in a different way so they are able to take on, suck up All harmonics. Of course only valid if I'm right. Good filtering now.

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 06, 2019, 10:30:16 AM

Thanks Arne,

i see where you are coming from with those harmonics etc., it sounds logical to me.

But the square wave signal (rate of change) seems to be a vital part of this setup it seems (its not my idea by the way).

The resonant TX coil will produce a strong sine wave on the resonant frequency which will be picked up
by the RX coils on their (same) resonant frequeny and thus filtering that frequency out.
So i expect to see (Spectrum wise) only a resonant frequency signal on the RX's.

But i will see what i can do, it involves some modifications to the setup.

Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 06, 2019, 04:03:51 PM
Thanks Arne,

i see where you are coming from with those harmonics etc., it sounds logical to me.

But the square wave signal (rate of change) seems to be a vital part of this setup it seems (its not my idea by the way).

The resonant TX coil will produce a strong sine wave on the resonant frequency which will be picked up
by the RX coils on their (same) resonant frequeny and thus filtering that frequency out.
So i expect to see (Spectrum wise) only a resonant frequency signal on the RX's.

But i will see what i can do, it involves some modifications to the setup.

Regards Itsu
Here read this you might find this could help you if not already known or clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroresonance_in_electricity_networks
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 06, 2019, 04:30:49 PM
Here read this you might find this could help you if not already known or clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroresonance_in_electricity_networks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroresonance_in_electricity_networks)

That article specifically addresses iron core transformers hence ferro-resonance. Here we are talking about air core transformers which do not exhibit this effect.

Ferro-resonance is typically used in transformers to provide a degree of voltage regulation. (CVT's)

A slightly higher Q might be obtained if ferrite rods, Litz wire and low dissipation factor capacitors such as vacuum or mica types were used. The ferrite rods would allow fewer turns for the same inductance, thus cutting down on copper resistive losses. Nevertheless, the power coupling would still be less than 100%. The efficacy of the improvement would depend on frequency as ferrites also get lossy at higher frequencies so there would be an optimum frequency point where benifit could be achieved for a given ferrite material type.

Alternately the air core coils could be made of silver plated thin wall copper tubing as used in radio transmitters to keep losses low and Q high. Still it will be less than 100% power transfer.

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 06, 2019, 05:32:46 PM
Itsu good craftmanship!
As this experiment is using a [almost] square  wave input we can first estimate roughly a minimum of 15 -20 percent loss [ see your Spectrum Analyze ] only depending of wasted overtone energy that will never be sucked into the secondary coils if I'm right. The Secondary coils are only tuned to one tone, the first (over)tone.
To check if I'm right. Pls. make a spectrum reading at the point before the diode bridge. But without the diode bridge and with a 50 Ohm load.  Strong first tone and weak (no) overtones.
If you see strong overtones there with similarity to  the primary emission, then I'm wrong. Not enough filtering! Maybe good in your eyes.
See also my previous impedanse matching suggestions.
 If you are able, make some efficiency tests with 3, 4, 5 sec. coils to see and evaluate, predikt if a much greater number of secoday coils maybe will improve the effectiveness.
In my eyes the main issues here are impedanse matching, the primary wave form and LED:s  ::) .
If you still belive that the sharp square waveform is a must for the best result then the secondarys have to be constructed in a different way so they are able to take on, suck up All harmonics. Of course only valid if I'm right. Good filtering now.

Regards Arne

I modified one of the RX coils by removing the FWBR and buffer cap so we have the LC circuit and a 51 Ohm load resistor.

The Spectrum analyzer was across this 51 Ohm load and still shows the harmonics present across this RX series LC, but way less then what the TX coil transmits

So it seems the RX coils also partly absorb that harmonic energy radiated by the TX coil and thus all is not lost.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 06, 2019, 06:52:09 PM
That article specifically addresses iron core transformers hence Ferro-resonance. Here we are talking about air core transformers which do not exhibit this effect.

Ferro-resonance is typically used in transformers to provide a degree of voltage regulation. (CVTs)

A slightly higher Q might be obtained if ferrite rods, Litz wire and low dissipation factor capacitors such as vacuum or mica types were used. The ferrite rods would allow fewer turns for the same inductance, thus cutting down on copper resistive losses. Nevertheless, the power coupling would still be less than 100%. The efficacy of the improvement would depend on frequency as ferrites also get lossy at higher frequencies so there would be an optimum frequency point where benefit could be achieved for a given ferrite material type.

Alternately the air core coils could be made of silver plated thin wall copper tubing as used in radio transmitters to keep losses low and Q high. Still, it will be less than 100% power transfer.

Regards
Err! don't be so quick to judge as that might be considered misleading information Mr. Vortex! as in the first section, that same none linear tactic is actually used in air spaced coils and works should anyone care to try it best results could be a pancake type coil or a tuned tank coil assembly.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 06, 2019, 07:25:53 PM
Err! don't be so quick to judge as that might be considered misleading information Mr. Vortex! as in the first section, that same none linear tactic is actually used in air spaced coils and works should anyone care to try it best results could be a pancake type coil or a tuned tank coil assembly.

OK, I'm willing to learn AG. How do  I make a non-linear air coil? Kindly show me the BH curves or any other data showing results of your non-linear air coil as I would like to make one and test it myself.

Kind Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 06, 2019, 08:21:32 PM
I modified one of the RX coils by removing the FWBR and buffer cap so we have the LC circuit and a 51 Ohm load resistor.
The Spectrum analyzer was across this 51 Ohm load and still shows the harmonics present across this RX series LC, but way less then what the TX coil transmits

So it seems the RX coils also partly absorb that harmonic energy radiated by the TX coil and thus all is not lost.

Itsu


Thanks Itsu for making the test.

This is my interpretation of the test result.

In your first Tx spectrum test:   The Tx radiated overtones are about 18 dBm below the ground-tone.   => Our incoming spectrum going to the Rx coil(s).
But now the Rx test gives :       The Tx radiated overtones are about 68 dBm below the ground-tone.

That differense 69 - 18 = 50 dBm  is One-hundred-thousen times less in power.
 That means that the Rx LC(R)-filter filters avay, rejects practically all the transmitted   overtone power  from the Tx coil.
So power from the overtones goes up in "smoke" and partly becomes extremely small.

So now is the question how to solve that dilemma?

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 06, 2019, 08:52:13 PM

Hi Arne,

you are absolutly right, the difference is hugh and the word partly is the wrong word.

Yes, the question is if that power lost in harmonics is affordable compared to f.i. using a sine wave as input.
If a sine wave does not produce any magic and the square wave does, then the choice is obvious.

But up till now no magic is seen at all.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 06, 2019, 10:35:20 PM
OK, I'm willing to learn AG. How do  I make a non-linear air coil? Kindly show me the BH curves or any other data showing results of your non-linear air coil as I would like to make one and test it myself.

Kind Regards
A Tesla coil or nonlinear resonance is a type of series resonance in electric circuits which occurs when a circuit containing a nonlinear inductance is fed from a source that has series capacitance, and the circuit is subjected to a disturbance such as the opening of an electronic switch BEMF.
It can cause overvoltages and overcurrents in electrical or electronic circuitry and can pose a risk to equipment and to operational personnel in close proximity.

This is getting off topic I see no advantage in any further discussion as it can work for me in my experiments without going off on a tangent and disrupting the thread further.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 06, 2019, 11:02:22 PM
A Tesla coil or nonlinear resonance is a type of series resonance in electric circuits which occurs when a circuit containing a nonlinear inductance is fed from a source that has series capacitance, and the circuit is subjected to a disturbance such as the opening of an electronic switch BEMF.
It can cause overvoltages and overcurrents in electrical or electronic circuitry and can pose a risk to equipment and to operational personnel in close proximity.

Quote
the same none linear tactic is actually used in air spaced coils and works should anyone care to try

AG;

I agree that there is such a thing as a non-linear inductance, and such a device usually has some type of saturating ferrous core.

I would be very interested in such a non-linear air core inductor that is constructed of an air core alone without ferrous material.

So I will ask again for your actual non-linear inductor BH curves or supporting tests that show your air core to be a non-linear inductance.

Show me the circuit containing a non-linear inductance that is made up of an air core alone. That was the original point of argument.

Test data is the requirement here, not dissertation on non-linear resonance. Short of data and accompanying test circuit, I'm not interested in going further with the argument.

Regards

P.S. Itsu, sorry if this seems a derailment, but it is an important point that maybe deserves it's own thread.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 07, 2019, 12:04:19 AM
...
This is my interpretation of the test result.
...
Hi Arne,

I also agree with your reasonings but you need to consider some facts and then rethink the situation.   

Itsu wrote in his post #352 that he checked the harmonics with the Spectrum Analyzer by picking them up with a probe near by the TX coil.  So this means a loose capacitive coupling through the air between the TX coil and the probe, ok? The probe had no any direct (galvanic) connection with the TX circuit. 

So this means that we cannot consider the displayed harmonic levels of the TX square wave drive to be good for a correct comparison with the harmonic levels taken directly across a receiver (RX) coil output.

The explanation is that the harmonic frequencies go through the capacitive coupling i.e. via a (low value) capacitor with an increasing amplitude because capacitive reactance (impedance) is inversely proportional to the frequency. So the higher the frequency the lower the capacitive reactance becomes, so the less extent it attenuates the harmonic amplitudes.   

And you need to add to this another fact as you mentioned: the TX and RX resonant LC circuit combination constitutes a mutually coupled two pole band pass filter with an increased selectivity, hence the harmonic levels are inherently attenuated in a higher degree than they are by the TX LC circuit alone, the latter can be considered as a single pole band pass filter.

To check the harmonic levels in the TX circuit alone, the Spectrum Analyzer ought to be connected to a 50 Ohm tap on the TX coil, matching the resonant high impedance to the 50 Ohm input impedance of the analyzer. OF course, the 50 Ohm input impedance of the analyzer would be transformed into the TX LC circuit, reducing its loaded Q to a certain degree but that would still give more correct harmonic amplitude levels than the capacitive coupling does.

Your question:
        " So now is the question how to solve that dilemma? "

Well, the solution to this dilemma should come from the originator(s) of the idea of transferring power wirelessly by such setups, this is what I think. 
But in the video demonstration this dilemma was not even mentioned, maybe it is not considered a problem, so is it needed to solve? Even so the claim is COP >> 1 anyway, so no offense but does the dilemma matter?   

Gyula

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 07, 2019, 12:27:04 AM
AG;
I agree that there is such a thing as a non-linear inductance, and such a device usually has some type of saturating the ferrous core.
I would be very interested in such a non-linear air core inductor that is constructed of an air core alone without ferrous material.
If you insist on faffing around disrupting this thread please create or select one as such to do so.
It's simple, a coil within a coil controlled by circuitry thus can be made to behave in a none linear manner.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on May 07, 2019, 02:33:31 AM
AG ....one of the wonderful things about a moderated topic ...is the ability to keep it neat and move interesting off topic  discussions to another thread.
If Your contribution above has some relevance to a possible gain mechanism or some as yet unspoken value to experimenters here ?? IMO it would need more investigation , and I am grateful that someone would take the time to investigate this and share with the community ?

Grumage  feel free to remove this post



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 07, 2019, 10:43:05 AM


This is not my thread, it was opened by Tinman some time ago, so i am also a guest here.
But i understand the need to sometimes deviate from the topic at hand to clear up some misunderstandings.
No problems with that Vortex1.


But AG, there should NEVER be a reason to battle each other with animated gifs etc.,   never.



Gyula, 

thanks for the heads up, you are right considering the Spectrum Analyzer measurements i did, kind of
compare apples with pears.

If the harmonics pose a problem here is not clear to me either, but as long as COP > 1 it could be.


Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 07, 2019, 11:56:18 AM
The harmonics pose only a problem when we are aiming for our first milestone; to reach COP 1 on our "journey" here. (my aim above)
Now present COP is below 0.2
But if we already have COP>2 some "evaporated" harmonics doesn't matter much, of course.

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 07, 2019, 12:23:31 PM
This post is off topic,  sorry for that.

Hi AlienGrey,
I kindly ask you to look into the mirror sometimes, mainly before writing certain messages. Otherwise the Trollmeter swings full scale for you. 

See here for instance what you wrote to Itsu: "Hmm, hows your formula knowledge and maths?"
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533756/#msg533756 

And as it turns out from my reply to you, it was you who approached the resonance frequency calculation for an LC circuit from reactance calculations point of view for L and C which is also ok but a side step instead of using the Thomson formula directly. What is more, Itsu has shown his knowledge for years (also in LC circuits) so that you were rather unpolite to him by posing that question.

And when you answered to me, you then asked a totally off topic question, (post #274) which I did answer and you did not even thank the answer.  (But this is no problem for me, not the reason I write this post.)

Here is another strange post from you #302:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533836/#msg533836

"Hi, 3 pages back re Rick F and his fancy 50 dollar 157uhry coils one guy finds a junk RC calculator that ets a 100uf cap to resonate at 1 khz, is that a joke or what ?"
 
I went 3 pages back but found no posts that included 100 uF cap to resonate at 1 kHz so asked you to give reply number that included it.

As an answer, you highlighted this text from benfr's post #260:
 " III. send a SQUARE frequency of 863 KHZ at 11 to 15 volts at x and y points.
the frequency can be approximately deduced from well established formulaes, for instance :
https://goodcalculators.com/resonant-frequency-calculator/ " and you added: you were trying to find out how Itsu got his 90 deg phase shift. Then found that and thought that can't be right. then tried to reverse logic what that Rick F was up to and got really confused. "

Well, there was no 100 uF cap and 1 kHz frequency written in benfr's post.

By the way, it is okay that originally you wanted to figure out from Itsu scope shot (shown in his post 289) why the 90 degree phase shift happened between the voltage waveforms (the answer is the voltage across a cap always leads 90 degree wrt the generator voltage).

No offense intended, and I will continue to answer your posts if I can, if they are stricly technical and relevant to a given topic.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: kolbacict on May 07, 2019, 12:43:32 PM
Quote
Your real world testing agrees with my simulations of your setup in LTSpice.
Look, everyone has it...

And I use a little Multisim11.0    is it much worse?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 07, 2019, 03:43:43 PM
This post is off topic,  sorry for that.

Hi AlienGrey,
I kindly ask you to look into the mirror sometimes, mainly before writing certain messages. Otherwise the Trollmeter swings full scale for you. 
If you look at what the guy is saying he wants to make an argument over my post and asks me for proof with photographs and input and output graphs and all sorts technical jargin, that's when it's Trolling I just don't have the time to wast. that is Trolling in my book.


See here for instance what you wrote to Itsu: "Hmm, hows your formula knowledge and maths?"
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533756/#msg533756 

And as it turns out from my reply to you, it was you who approached the resonance frequency calculation for an LC circuit from reactance calculations point of view for L and C which is also ok but a side step instead of using the Thomson formula directly. What is more, Itsu has shown his knowledge for years (also in LC circuits) so that you were rather unpolite to him by posing that question.
Was it, I certainly wasn't aware I had upset Itsu, if I have it was totally unintentional I can assure you and Itsu.

And when you answered to me, you then asked a totally off topic question, (post #274) which I did answer and you did not even thank the answer.  (But this is no problem for me, not the reason I write this post.)
Yes, you did answer thank you, as I was after a quick cheap way of getting a 50/50 square wave which I made up, unfortunately, it did not produce a square wave something more like 40/60 which was of no use, I just didn't have the time as I had to keep searching and testing for an answer. Wich I did in the end of another unlikely user on another thread. Thanks anyway.

Here is another strange post from you #302:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533836/#msg533836

"Hi, 3 pages back re Rick F and his fancy 50 dollar 157uhry coils one guy finds a junk RC calculator that ets a 100uf cap to resonate at 1 khz, is that a joke or what ?"
Yes I agree, that's it was originally pointed to it and why I queried it.
 
I went 3 pages back but found no posts that included 100 uF cap to resonate at 1 kHz so asked you to give reply number that included it.

As an answer, you highlighted this text from benfr's post #260:
 " III. send a SQUARE frequency of 863 KHZ at 11 to 15 volts at x and y points.
the frequency can be approximately deduced from well-established formulas, for instance :
https://goodcalculators.com/resonant-frequency-calculator/ " and you added: you were trying to find out how Itsu got his 90 deg phase shift. Then found that and thought that can't be right. then tried to reverse logic what that Rick F was up to and got really confused. "

Well, there was no 100 uF cap and 1 kHz frequency written in benfr's post.
Well, thats strange as I can go straight to it with the pointer I gave you on my machine!

By the way, it is okay that originally you wanted to figure out from Itsu scope shot (shown in his post 289) why the 90 degree phase shift happened between the voltage waveforms (the answer is the voltage across a cap always leads 90 degrees wrt the generator voltage).
That only works on caps and resistance if you try it with caps and inductance you won't get the same result and I can't find any equation for such a setup.

No offense intended, and I will continue to answer your posts if I can if they are strictly technical and relevant to a given topic.

Gyula
Thanks Gyula, but isn't this thread suppose to be about, Confirmation of OU devices and claims, therefore I was merely asking originally a question with some humor. Any way likewise and thanks for the input. I will file it in the black filing cabinet with all the other junk  ;D ;D
Regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 07, 2019, 05:28:10 PM
Quote

Well, there was no 100 uF cap and 1 kHz frequency written in benfr's post.
Well, thats strange as I can go straight to it with the pointer I gave you on my machine!

AG, I simply do not get what you mean in your 2nd sentence? What pointer did you give ?

Quote

That only works on caps and resistance if you try it with caps and inductance you won't get the same result and I can't find any equation for such a setup.


I just checked the 90 degree phase shift Itsu measured, it is the attachment rick LC.png here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533810/#msg533810   

Now I see that in his practical setup (not the simulation) the 100 pF with the 163 uH coil cannot give 1.162 MHz resonant frequency but a 115 pF cap can give resonance. So his probe was in parallel with the 100 pF so it detuned a little the circuit from resonance and that is which may have caused the 88 degree phase shift between generator and capacitor voltage he checked. 

If you use this calculator what member benfr gave: https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/ja/calculator/series-rlc-impedance/   and enter 100 pF and 163 uH with 1162 kHz frequency, then you get nearly 74.4 degree phase angle, close to 88 degree what Itsu measured by scope (use R= 50 Ohm series resistance).
BUT his main goal with that measurement was first to show the Q times voltage amplification across the reactive components versus the generator voltage at resonance, this was correct even if exact fine tuning was not shown.  His second goal was to ask whether voltage amplification at resonance in a series LC circuit gives "overunity" ? 

Here is a good link for revising the calculation of series RLC circuits:
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-circuit.html   


Yes, this thread is supposed to deal with confirmation of OU devices but so far this TX-RX setup failed in practice in this respect.

Anyway,   giving more courtesy towards all the members here is the polite way for communicating.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 07, 2019, 10:03:21 PM
Itsu Hi Just a simple question, around page 20 you show a scope shot of a two trace align wave about 90 deg out of phase without digesting the whole thread how did you get that waveform > is it from a circuit or emulation and if a circuit have you a drawing I can view, please. many thanks, AG

Also before that, you show a square wave would that be created the same way?

again if you could please advise.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 08, 2019, 11:23:49 AM

AG,

Gyula pointed (linked) in his above post to the specific post on page 20 you refer to.

 
All info on those 2 screenshots (1st one from the sim, 2th one from my real circuit/scope) are in that post.

Just picture the circuit drawn (see below), then for MY REAL CIRCUIT, picture the purple trace probe (CH3)
across V1 (FG and whole LRC), ground lead left (-), probe tip right (+).
I seem to have INVERTED the purple signal, so in real it should be flipped over (180°).

Then picture the blue trace probe (CH2) across C1 (series Cap), ground lead also left, probe tip right.


The reason for the voltages across the RLC (purple) and the C (blue) being 90° off is explained in a link i
presented a few post later to benfr (post # 295) where i wrote:

Quote
Please read up on series resonance circuits:
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-resonance.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-resonance.html)

Under "Impedance in a Series Resonance Circuit"


There it reads:

Quote
We recall from the previous tutorial about series RLC circuits that the voltage across a series combination
is the phasor sum of VR, VL and VC. Then if at resonance the two reactances are equal and cancelling, the
two voltages representing VL and VC must also be opposite and equal in value thereby cancelling each other
out because with pure components the phasor voltages are drawn at +90o and -90o respectively.

So (in resonance) compared to the "view" from across the whole RLC (purple), the signal across L and C are
resp. +90° and -90° (remember my purple trace is inverted) out of phase. 

Hope this clears it up.



Concerning this question:

Quote
Also before that, you show a square wave would that be created the same way?

I guess you mean my post #271 on page 19.

There i refer to Benfr his setup, see sim circuit (cap, coil, cap, coil, cap, coil in series) with parallel
across it a load (R1) and the FG (V1).

The square wave signal in both the SIM (green) and in my screenshot (blue and white) are from across the FG (V1).
The green (sim) and blue signals are when NOT in resonance (nice squares), the white one is what happens when
IN resonance (the resonance signal loads the FG in such a way that it forms these troughs.

Regards Itsu 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 08, 2019, 08:58:31 PM
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for the additional work you have assigned for this topic.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on May 09, 2019, 07:03:50 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 09, 2019, 10:34:50 AM
Hello,

it is also possible to bring an oscillator in the game to see wonderful waveforms show what it does look like to observe directly energy mutiplication. In this case, plug the oscilloscope to the end of the coil and between the coil and the capacitor. It WILL modify the frequency of resonance. when dealing with that, you will observe in the most simple setup such as    L 157 uF - C 100 pF and a 4 V LED, the LED lighting by 1.2 V or so (allow up to 1.9 as I don't recall). THEN, what is input is indeed a SQUARE wave of approx. 1.2 MHZ, and the frequency with the VOLTAGE amplification tank is transformed into a SINE wave. The sine wave is uniformly higher than the input , at all times, at comparable time spans , at it seems. Hence this explains how the LED can be lighted, while, if we had directly plugged the Freq Gen at the LED, would have done nothing.
When the LED is bright, change the frequency by 100KHZ down. Then the sine wave becomes a flatline, and "you know what a flatline means to most people" to quote Rick, and the LED stops being lighted. This is a system out of resonance where no amplification has taken place. Get back 100KHZ higher as before : now the SINE wave appears , and the LED brings light ! Note that using this setup with an oscilloscope is also putting the oscilloscope itself into resonance.
From Rick Friedrich's Resonant Induction Coupler Kit, exercice 1.b.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 09, 2019, 10:40:14 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY

Thanks, looks like exactly what I am trying to deal with here  :D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 09, 2019, 10:54:25 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY)

Thanks Aking21,

a golden oldie, nicely demonstrating the effect of low impedance at series resonance and high impedance with parallel resonance.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hdeasy on May 09, 2019, 11:27:26 AM
Interesting experiment indeed with the resonance impedance transformer. Have there been tests confirming lower losses in the primary circuit than in the secondary? If so, it is indeed a good way to free energy. Or is it the case that the V²/R losses in the primary balance those in the secondary?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 09, 2019, 11:39:34 AM
Interesting experiment indeed with the resonance impedance transformer. Have there been tests confirming lower losses in the primary circuit than in the secondary? If so, it is indeed a good way to free energy. Or is it the case that the V²/R losses in the primary balance those in the secondary?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY
Comments :
Answer to NaboOOo, 8 years before :   3V 300 mA ~ 12 V 75 mA, fine tuning of light his colour
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 09, 2019, 11:47:07 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY)
You can find explanations from the maker of the video, Tortuga0303 in the Comments section under the video.  I collected the most relevant explanations:   
 
"it was a 11 volt signal generator with 50 ohm impedance. 12 volt bulb. this is an impedance matching trick" 

"A series LC acts as a short circuit at resonance, while a parallel LC acts like a huge impedance. "

"The bulbs take some  3v 300ma to light up. The input is 12v. Therefore it is possible that the input be say 12 v @ 75ma. Then through the impedance matching quality of the transformer, the output is reduced to 3v 300ma. power going in and out is the same, but one is of the correct quality to light the bulb and the other is not. "

"The bulbs need several hundred miliamps to light. Below this threshold they are dim if not lit at all.
The first bulb has going through it 12v, but few miliamps making it dim. The second bulb is impedance matched bringing the 12 v down, and the amperage up, therefore lighting the second bulb. All the power is going through the first bulb, but in a form which is not suitable for its incandescence. "

"I think you will find this is not more power out than in. This is because you are using a resistive load, and when all things are considered, the last thing you want to add into the equation is resistance. But bubs make for good visuals. This is simply a place to start to learn the basics.-"

"people often ask the specifics, however there is no magic frequency. It is all dependent on the physical parameters, i.e. inductance and capacitance. What you do need to know is that they are tuned to the SAME frequency, driven at square wave. If they were driven with sine wave, you would see the EXACT same form on the ol O-scope, pure sine wave, due to being run at resonance. Driving voltage was 11 volts."

This says it all.  Nice demo for impedance matching and no overunitiy. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 09, 2019, 12:12:55 PM
...

it is also possible to bring an oscillator in the game to see wonderful waveforms show what it does look like to observe directly energy multiplication.

....
From Rick Friedrich's Resonant Induction Coupler Kit, exercice 1.b.
Hi benfr,
Please understand the following comment from Tortuga0303, the maker of the video a.king referred to:

"The bulbs take some  3v 300ma to light up. The input is 12v. Therefore it is possible that the input be say 12 v @ 75ma. Then through the impedance matching quality of the transformer, the output is reduced to 3v 300ma. power going in and out is the same,  but one is of the correct quality to light the bulb and the other is not. "   
 
So there is no energy multiplication happening.  In fact, there is no more output power in the secondary LC circuits than what was input to the primary (the transmitter) coil / circuit.  Itsu's measurements clearly showed the facts.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 09, 2019, 12:34:19 PM
Hi benfr,
Please understand the following comment from Tortuga0303, the maker of the video a.king referred to:

"The bulbs take some  3v 300ma to light up. The input is 12v. Therefore it is possible that the input be say 12 v @ 75ma. Then through the impedance matching quality of the transformer, the output is reduced to 3v 300ma. power going in and out is the same,  but one is of the correct quality to light the bulb and the other is not. "   
 
So there is no energy multiplication happening.  In fact, there is no more output power in the secondary LC circuits than what was input to the primary (the transmitter) coil / circuit.  Itsu's measurements clearly showed the facts.
Gyula

Hi Gyula, that video is interesting, I agree it does not show any OU as it is not demonstrating that. What is interesting is the "stealth" of frequency between the two coils, because it is a real door to understand more about resonance, the author makes reference to that when he quotes that the 2 coils are 'matched'. However, coil matching at resonance is a matter that is not explored in the video, in an explicit way, for it has several dimensions : wavelength, capacitance, inductance, rate of change, disruptive discharge, and others.

When you say "..So there is no multiplication happening", indeed there is ! And this multiplication has no end if one desires to multiply the components producing that I described with the 3 series LC tanks  that are in series with each other.
Energy demultiplication can also be seen on an oscillocope, beyond lighting a 95 V 1.9 mA bulb (my NE2), or , a 4 V LED ; respectively from a 13V and a 1.x V input, as described in my most recent post.
There is no way you can deny energy amplification if you can show to light a LED or bulb with no change in the input and by the simple dial of the resonant frequency, and not lighting anymore with a discrete modification on the dial all other things being equal...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 09, 2019, 01:14:37 PM
benfr : DC 3 Volt to 12 Volt = energy amplification, but does not indicate power amplification
           
            When you have " power amplification": which source becomes harvest ?
            When you are beside : your body waves emission ?
             

 From the ambient ? ( Non / enclosed )Oxygen to Ozone ionising ,dehumidifying( Enthalpy gains) !                   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_ioniser
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 09, 2019, 01:30:05 PM
benfr : DC 3 Volt to 12 Volt = energy amplification, but does not indicate power amplification
           

Power and energy : those terms aren't coined properly. Are you saying that power as amperage ? energy as voltage ?

           
            When you have " power amplification": which source becomes harvest ?
            When you are beside : your body waves emission ?
           
Please rephrase your questions, I do not understand.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 09, 2019, 01:44:22 PM
benfr, you are right, there is often misinterpretation !

pressure, force, work, power : the final is : work x time = power in Wh

Volt : tension         Ampere : current.        DC: Volt x Ampere = work

Volt-source + Ampere charge x time = power source
Ampere -source + Volt-charge x time = power source

So you mean you have a " power amplification concept":
based by a tension-source or current-source ?

How is the" factor : time" calculated if not 100% flow per second  but in pulsation ( time on/ off) ?


Sincerely
OCWL

p.s.: does the ambient makes part from your conversion concept device ? 

      do you analyze humidity, temperature, ambient/room pressure/ static  during tests ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 09, 2019, 02:56:13 PM

So you mean you have a " power amplification concept":
based by a tension-source or current-source ?


Sincerely
OCWL

Thanks...I have both. But I have only shown the VOLTAGE amplification , for free.
The AMPERAGE amplification, as described and exertable in Rick Friedrich's RICK, is the following :
one resonant tank LC in parallel.
to position energy watts consuming at the entry of the tank (1 W resistor before the tank, and following the frequency gen). Place also a capacitor in series between that resistor and the tank.
Placing such similar resistor inside the tank, between the capacitor and coil, will demonstrate AMPERAGE multiplication at the resonance point(s) with the following calculation.
 This is done by using the measurement Power or Amperage in closed circuit = Voltage squared / resistance in OHM.
 To measure, place two probes across each resistor.
Some resonant frequencies will demonstrate higher amplification than others. In the same circuit, several frequencies are resonant, and the Q is not the same for each of them.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 09, 2019, 03:00:04 PM
AG,

Gyula pointed (linked) in his above post to the specific post on page 20 you refer to.

 
All info on those 2 screenshots (1st one from the sim, 2th one from my real circuit/scope) are in that post.

Just picture the circuit drawn (see below), then for MY REAL CIRCUIT, picture the purple trace probe (CH3)
across V1 (FG and whole LRC), ground lead left (-), probe tip right (+).
I seem to have INVERTED the purple signal, so in real it should be flipped over (180°).

Then picture the blue trace probe (CH2) across C1 (series Cap), ground lead also left, probe tip right.


The reason for the voltages across the RLC (purple) and the C (blue) being 90° off is explained in a link i
presented a few post later to benfr (post # 295) where i wrote:


There it reads:

So (in resonance) compared to the "view" from across the whole RLC (purple), the signal across L and C are
resp. +90° and -90° (remember my purple trace is inverted) out of phase. 

Hope this clears it up.



Concerning this question:

I guess you mean my post #271 on page 19.

There i refer to Benfr his setup, see sim circuit (cap, coil, cap, coil, cap, coil in series) with parallel
across it a load (R1) and the FG (V1).

The square wave signal in both the SIM (green) and in my screenshot (blue and white) are from across the FG (V1).
The green (sim) and blue signals are when NOT in resonance (nice squares), the white one is what happens when
IN resonance (the resonance signal loads the FG in such a way that it forms these troughs.

Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu thanks for confirming that for me (i don't work  well if too many choices) I tried something like that when
Wesley mentioned adding a C  to an inductive coil transformer to obtain a 90 deg phase shift but got nowhere, I will retry to see if I can set the experiment
up for my self again and report back later, many thanks again.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 09, 2019, 04:24:30 PM
Hi benfr,

You wrote:

Quote
However, coil matching at resonance is a matter that is not explored in the video, in an explicit way, for it has several dimensions : wavelength, capacitance, inductance, rate of change, disruptive discharge, and others. 

You mention "disruptive discharge".  I do not think there is "disruptive discharge" happening and I wrote this to a.king in my post #339, Page 23 of this thread. However, he has not returned with an answer yet.

Would you mind explaining how you think it happens in Rick's setup when the series LC (i.e. the TX) circuit is driven by the output of the gate driver IC? 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 09, 2019, 04:44:42 PM
benfr, thank you for the trial to make it clear ( me not ! ??? )
Probably it will be a need to invest two hours of life for his view  and  description :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ke4aqkrkh1o
So only after that I will ask you again for details. !


Happy disclosure wishing
OCWL


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 09, 2019, 05:03:41 PM
benfr, thank you for the trial to make it clear ( me not ! ??? )
Probably it will be a need to invest two hours of life for his view  and  description :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ke4aqkrkh1o
So only after that I will ask you again for details. !


Happy disclosure wishing
OCWL

not sure to understand you... :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 09, 2019, 05:06:43 PM
Hi benfr,

You wrote:

You mention "disruptive discharge".  I do not think there is "disruptive discharge" happening and I wrote this to a.king in my post #339, Page 23 of this thread. However, he has not returned with an answer yet.

Would you mind explaining how you think it happens in Rick's setup when the series LC (i.e. the TX) circuit is driven by the output of the gate driver IC? 

Gyula

Gyula, simply put -  a SQUARE wave IS a disruptive discharge. YES you need this to trigger the resonance we are looking at. BUT you could not have it and still do useful observations - beyond my area of play, here, so I won't tell you to start this. The Gate driver is, merely, a disruptive discharge amplifier.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on May 09, 2019, 05:19:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQqYs6O2MPw
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on May 09, 2019, 05:30:00 PM
Gyula, simply put -  a SQUARE wave IS a disruptive discharge. YES you need this to trigger the resonance we are looking at. BUT you could not have it and still do useful observations - beyond my area of play, here, so I won't tell you to start this. The Gate driver is, merely, a disruptive discharge amplifier.

Hi Benfr,

Perhaps you could explain what a square wave is a discharging?  Obviously something is being disruptively discharged but it is unclear as to exactly what this "something" is?

Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 09, 2019, 05:52:22 PM
Hi Benfr,

Perhaps you could explain what a square wave is a discharging?  Obviously something is being disruptively discharged but it is unclear as to exactly what this "something" is?

Regards,
Pm

Hi, a square wave is disruptive ie suppose I'm "shouting loud at you" for some bad reason :)  suddenly when there was silence.
_|
that is the waveform that would be recorded.
the louder I shouted, the strongest the dB discharge, and the longest the vertical bar.
Now, superpose a square wave and match the above wave.
You have now the place where the disruptive discharge takes place.
 ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tomd on May 09, 2019, 09:57:50 PM
Ringing a LCR circuit with a square wave. Its important the frequency of the source is sufficiently less than the resonant frequency.
"Why is ringing occurring here for square-wave inputs at only low frequencies?

Because it's not low frequency - the edge of the voltage (if infinitely steep) has contained inside it infinite harmonics and, one of those harmonics will be coincident with the LC resonant frequency and trigger a damped oscillation as seen in the 2nd waveform picture. Of course, the edge of the voltage only has to contain a harmonic coincident with the LC resonance for this to happen - it doesn't need to be infinitely fast." https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/259593/a-question-about-ringing-phenomena-and-resonance (https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/259593/a-question-about-ringing-phenomena-and-resonance)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 09, 2019, 11:22:54 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQqYs6O2MPw
Walter Lewin a real 'fun guy' he must get it from the mushrooms he eats.  ;D ;D

Also Itsu yes made up your circuit as I have used resonance many times but never tried to test for 90 deg till now! as many of will already know I will repeat the obvious fact 'to get a phase shift of 90 deg both a capacitor and the inductor to have to be in resonance' with your selected 'resonant throughput frequency'!

Well, that solves one problem and explains a great deal!  ;D ;D
Many thanks all!  AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 14, 2019, 07:22:43 PM

It seems bigger is better in this case.

So i build a big coil with what i have:

former 16cm diameter
1mm diam wire (AWG #18)
145 turns spanning 15.5cm, so coil is almost square.

Measured:
Inductance 2.3mH and Q 98 @ 100Khz
DC resistance 1.7 Ohm

Series capacitor is 2x 35-345pF air variable paralleled.
Measured:
51-684pF.

Resonance tuned to 180Khz (caps slightly below half way).

Using my FG only in square wave DC 50% duty cycle 10Vpp:
picture shows this setup.
screenshot shows first results:

Yellow: voltage across C
Green: current through LC (inverted so it shows the voltage leading the current as in an inductive circuit)
Blue : input voltage from FG
Red:  math trace yellow x green = real power in the LC circuit.

So allthough we have a high p2p voltage across both L and C, the 90° shift between voltage and current accounts for the low power.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 14, 2019, 10:30:44 PM

I added the gate driver running at 9V (60ma), see screenshot.

Yellow: voltage across the air caps
green: the current through the LC circuit
blue: voltage from the gate driver out.


I tried to modify my satellite LC coils (163uh @ 100pF) by paralleling a 4.7nF cap to the 100pF trimmer so
they would resonate also around 180Khz, but that won't work.

They strongly try to resonate around 2.8Mhz which seems to be their natural selfresonance frequency, so all
i see is a ringdown on 2.8Mhz repeated every 180Khz.
I guess the LC relationship is way off to be able to resonate that low.

Also my hall sensor probe seems unable to correctly pick up the signal, its always is showing a one direction
magnetic field (@ 180Khz) no matter how i keep the probe toward the coil (front, rear or side).
It does show stronger amplitude at the top of the coil (same as my field strength meter). 

Itsu

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 15, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
It seems bigger is better in this case.

So i build a big coil with what i have:



That's an awesome setup itsu. Congratulations. I can see you went for the big coil as presented by Rick on his video. It is looking like it.
1. Do you have voltage loads like bulbs/LEDs to light at resonance with the small input ?
2. Did you buy the gate driver somewhere or you built it ? I am interested to know about the schematics if you please.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 15, 2019, 11:12:41 AM


Quote
That's an awesome setup itsu. Congratulations. I can see you went for the big coil as presented by Rick on his video. It is looking like it.
1. Do you have voltage loads like bulbs/LEDs to light at resonance with the small input ?
2. Did you buy the gate driver somewhere or you built it ? I am interested to know about the schematics if you please.

Hi Benfr,

I tried to copy the big coil as close as possible with the stuff i had laying around.

1.  No, i did not tried any bulbs/LEDs yet as i need to modify my (small) satellite coils to be able to work on this
    lower (180KHz) frequency the big coil runs on.
2.  I build the gate driver (IXDD614PI), data sheet link below, on page 6 its schematic (modified in red below).

 

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjWiorHlp3iAhXSKVAKHbODDF8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ixysic.com%2Fhome%2Fpdfs.nsf%2Fwww%2FIXD_614.pdf%2F%24file%2FIXD_614.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0jMQGV7M_9EMUPFTFA9SHT (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjWiorHlp3iAhXSKVAKHbODDF8QFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ixysic.com%2Fhome%2Fpdfs.nsf%2Fwww%2FIXD_614.pdf%2F%24file%2FIXD_614.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0jMQGV7M_9EMUPFTFA9SHT)

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 15, 2019, 12:12:49 PM

2.  I build the gate driver (IXDD614PI), data sheet link below, on page 6 its schematic (modified in red below).




Thanks itsu !
The credit of the gate driver for the amplification of the disruptive discharge goes entirely to Richard Friedrich, without him I would be unlimitedly farther from the truth of unlimited energy. ;D and in turns, this comes with credit from Nikola Tesla , and Don Smith, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 15, 2019, 12:36:43 PM

Hmmm,

the gate driver for the amplification of the disruptive discharge ("disruptive discharge" being your words for
a square wave if i understand that right), was designed by some clever Electrical Engineers many years ago,
so credit has to go to those EE's only.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 15, 2019, 10:01:08 PM

Running the gate driver on 18V at 250mA, so roughly 4.5W input.

Voltage across the caps (thus L) reach 4.518kV see screenshot.

A satellite coil (163uH) tuned with a 4.7nF cap on top of the big coil resonates at 180KHz and lights up a 12V / 3.5W led bulb
see picture.

The idea is to have more satellite coils (15 - 20) placed near to the big coil all lighting up such a 12V / 3.5W led bulb
while maintaining or even lowering the 18V / 250mA input (4.5W).

Of course leds are notorious for lightning up on small spikes so carefull measurement on their consumed power
needs to be done.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 16, 2019, 12:30:19 PM

The idea is to have more satellite coils (15 - 20) placed near to the big coil all lighting up such a 12V / 3.5W led bulb
while maintaining or even lowering the 18V / 250mA input (4.5W).


Itsu

Exactly. This is the output multiplication of bread by Jesus Rick Friedrich was referring to in his RICK kit :
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 17, 2019, 10:39:07 PM

Running the big coil without any probes attached and tuned for max. (180KHz) when the gate driver is at 9V.
I get 160ma input at this 9V, so we have an input power of 1.4W into the gate driver.


Adding a RX or satellite coil (DC out into a 3W led) detunes the big coil but after retuning we loose 40ma
due to lower Q, i guess, and thus lower voltage across L and C.
Input now 9V @ 120mA = 1.08W.

Measuring this satellite coil shows we have 2.7v @ 52mA = 140mW into the led.

Adding another satellite coil shows the initial satellite coil looses 10mA.

It looks like the same thing is happening as with the earlier tested smaller TX coil.
The more satellite coils to be added, the less power is left to be divided among them.

I will try to continue to test with all 5 or 6 satellite coils to get this confirmed.


I also tried to put 2 satellite coils in line, one behind another, but i did not notice any retransmitting effect.


Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFf3v13t-9I&feature=youtu.be

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tomd on May 18, 2019, 01:23:20 AM
http://www.spigellab.com/2016/07/12/basic-teslas-experiments-part-4-measuring-power-consumption-300w-motor-and-wireless-power/ (http://www.spigellab.com/2016/07/12/basic-teslas-experiments-part-4-measuring-power-consumption-300w-motor-and-wireless-power/)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on May 18, 2019, 05:27:11 PM
http://www.spigellab.com/2016/07/12/basic-teslas-experiments-part-4-measuring-power-consumption-300w-motor-and-wireless-power/ (http://www.spigellab.com/2016/07/12/basic-teslas-experiments-part-4-measuring-power-consumption-300w-motor-and-wireless-power/)

Itsu does much  better than this video by actually measuring input power consumed as well as output power delivered to the load. The presenter in the video never shows input power calculations.

The presenter should not even have mentioned 300 Watt motor as it is not consuming 300 Watts as it is essentially unloaded. Rather it is consuming 69 Watts or less depending on distance between Tx/Rx. (distance lowers capacitance coupling)

As far as wireless power, the power is transmitted via the large capacitance formed by the tin plates on the high tension nodes  and the return path is using ground wires. It will not work efficiently without the ground wires to complete the capacitively coupled circuit, so it is not a truly wireless transmitter / receiver pair.

Just because the capacitance between the nodes is invisible to the eye does not mean that it is not there completing the circuit.

If you remove the tin foil plates and replace them with a high voltage capacitor of equivalent pF connecting the two high tension nodes, would you still call the system "wireless" ?

An air core transformer setup such as Itsu has demonstrated is closer to the definition of a "wireless" power transfer system.

In more general terms any transformer (even 60Hz iron cored types) reasonably  isolated from primary to secondary and not requiring grounds or relying on capacitance coupling is much closer to the definition of a truly "wireless" power transfer system.

FWIW
Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 18, 2019, 05:37:51 PM

Thanks Tomd,    looks similar as what we are doing here.



To be more specific on my used leds and to show how easy it is to be deceived by leds, here i made a graph
showing my used 3V/3W led in a black box fed with DC voltage and measured by a small photocell.

The above reported 140mW will light up such a led to about 2/3th of its max. allowable light strength.
Meaning at about 5% of its max input it will already produce 66% of its output.

So if someone says he uses 3 or 4 or 5W leds at considerable light, this by no means mean that they use 3 or 4 or 5Watt.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 18, 2019, 10:08:15 PM
As promised earlier, i tested with 5 satellite coils around the big coil.

I tuned again the big coil for max resonance at 180KHz (9v @ 110mA = 0.99W input).
The 5 satellite coils leds are on again rather brightly.
But the one still measured for voltage and current now shows 2.63V @ 23mA for 60mW power.

When we roughly take this 60mW times 5 we get 300mW total consumed by the leds which is about 1/3 of the
power available at the input (COP = 0.3).

So we went from:
1 coil running at 2.7V @ 52mA = 140mW to
5 coils each running at 2.6V @ 23mA = 60mW (300mW total).

60mW on the graph shows still about half the max. brightness of such a led.

video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmx2HMYI95E 

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 19, 2019, 06:53:16 PM
Itsu,#443 :
                     66% of its output  = measured in lumen/Watt. ?
Sincerely
OCWL
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 19, 2019, 07:17:03 PM

LancaIV,

measured in mV output of a little solar cell.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 19, 2019, 07:31:10 PM
#440 satellite coil to LED : 140 mW (2,7 V,52 mA)

#443 LED to Photo cell : 1450 mV ,    mA  for getting output 66% ?

               
                                       

       
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 19, 2019, 08:57:12 PM

LancaIV,

Please state your questions clear.

I understand you ask for the amount of mA's through the led when it was characterized with DC in my black box
at the 1450mW (66%) photocell output data point.

The nearest Excel data point is at 1400mV / 134mW (see graph) which shows:
 
  V        mA    mW    PC V   PC mV
2,679    50    134    1,4    1400

So at 1450mV (140mW) it must have been slightly higher then 50mA, so about 52mA.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on May 19, 2019, 09:41:50 PM
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPhotometer
I am only wondering me about the photoelectric efficiency from LED power light conversion to Photo cell and the measured and indicating value  !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 20, 2019, 03:08:29 PM
Congrats itsu ! I hope this is the beginning of Joy :D
Two remarks : do try to moderate the distance of the secondary coils from the big coil : they should be between "close" and "distant" : this location allows not to detune the main one. Detuning the main coil from the resonant point you found is something you want to avoid.
2. it's very interesting how you show that the individual consumption of the satellite coils go lower and lower as the multi body configuration expands. What is the limit of this ? Zero consumption ?...
3. try to put your satellite coils at the level of the top of the big coil ! (on a piece of non disturbating magnetic field, such as wood or pvc) : any difference ? ...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 20, 2019, 04:05:16 PM

Thanks for the congrats, allthough i am unsure for what.

As soon as a satellite coil draws current (which is way before its led goes on), detuning of
the big coil takes place.

So avoiding that is almost impossible.

Well, it seems the more satellites you add, the less power remains left for all of them, but at a certian point
the leds go off, but still they use power, so its hard to predict what will happen at the end.


I did change the height of the satellite coils, best result is half way up the big coil as shown.
But...., my satellite coils are not correctly build (they are to long and not wide enough).

Also the winding direction of the big coil is wrong (CCW) compared to the satellite coils (CW), so
i am making some new satellite coils (ccw) of the correct size (6cm former, 0.7mm wire, 52 turns).

Perhaps that makes the difference.


Itsu
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on May 20, 2019, 04:12:22 PM
   Itsu:   You may want to try a couple of your Dr. Stiffler "diode loops" and leds on the big coil, instead. They might take less input from the big coil to light brightly. Blindingly bright. Other wise you may get stuck at the 2.6 volts level, which will not light the leds to full brightness. Each additional load of leds will share the input source, and is why the voltage drops. Not because the more leds are lit the load on the input drops. It drops because they are all sharing the input source. As you know, but other guys may not know that.   It would seam that up to now All free energy or OU devices they we've tried, are nothing more than inefficient bottle necks, compared to the input source. Hopefully we can do something about that.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 20, 2019, 05:32:07 PM
Can anyone explain to me why LEDs are always used as load (resistors) in all these threads /discussion groups about OU through the years.
 Is it so that that is the best way to prolonge the threads duration (amount of words written) in an optimum way?
Whats wrong with resistors??

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 20, 2019, 06:24:50 PM
Itsu and Gyulasun, You're going to luv this one! in the Ruslan Akula 'yoke' this device has two output windings,
both feed the grenade device one with a parallel capacitor and the other with a series cap so one would expect
the one winding to be out of phase with the other but I can't get a phase shift with an oscillation feed from the 'yoke'.
Obviously, the 'yoke has it's own inductance and isn't a Sig Gen, any ideas? the yoke in my test windings are

Grenade                                                           Yoke
inductor winding                        138uhry  ------- 28 turn winding                        7.4mhry
none inductive 6 layers winding  268uhry -------   4 turn winding                         0.22mhry

What we need to find is how to work out of find the correct capacitor values


As Wesley also used this type of circuit as an energy boost we need to test this circuit as it could be of good use if proven! and well on the thread!  ;D


Regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 20, 2019, 11:44:35 PM
Can anyone explain to me why LEDs are always used as load (resistors) in all these threads /discussion groups about OU through the years.
 Is it so that that is the best way to prolonge the threads duration (amount of words written) in an optimum way?
Whats wrong with resistors??

Arne
Hi Arne,

Good question  :)   and I think there are at least two answers. 

One is that LEDs are spectacular and their brightness is a good indication for any adjustments a circuit needs while driving the LED.  Also, LEDs are perhaps the most efficient source of light nowadays, so why not use modern devices?

The other answer is that it can be a blessing for those who want to outsmart gullible people with brightness... What I mean: 

1) LED diodes draw current continously from a DC source because the DC voltage level should be higher than their forward voltage specification.   

2) However, LED diodes draw current from an AC source only when the peak voltage of the AC waveform is higher than their
forward voltage specification. This means that the LED does not draw current continuously within a full AC cycle but intermittently only. Yet the brightness of the LED can be similar to full brightness because human eye perceives it like that, while the average current hence power draw is less than in case of a normal DC drive.  This is why it is important to evaluate the actual power consumption for LEDs when making unusual claims.

If we consider off the shelf  LED light bulbs, then they are designed for either DC or AC operation and in the latter case they may have internal circuitry to rectify input AC etc. 

Confront this with a resistor load: it draws current from either a DC or an AC source all the time and it is a linear load while LEDs are highly nonlinear ones: this is another 'blessing'.   

I have often mentioned the pitfalls when someone demonstrates output power with the use of LEDs how bright they are but no actuall current and voltage measurements are taken.  This is true for a pulse motor for instance when it is combined with some generator coils and these output coils are loaded by LED lamps. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 20, 2019, 11:50:49 PM
AlienGray,

Could you show even a hand drawn schematic on  your coils connection with their inductance values and capacitor values, this would greatly help giving a better answer. Include the frequency involved for your case.
I know there are several such circuit drawings shown in the actual threads but I do not want to wade through any of them and they may not show 'your version'.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 21, 2019, 12:47:19 AM
" ITSU:
When we roughly take this 60mW times 5 we get 300mW total consumed by the leds which is about 1/3 of the
power available at the input (COP = 0.3)."

Pls. compare the coils magnetic directions!

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on May 21, 2019, 02:52:03 AM
AlienGray,

Could you show even a hand drawn schematic on your coils connection with their inductance values and capacitor values, this would greatly help giving a better answer. Include the frequency involved for your case.
I know there are several such circuit drawings shown in the actual threads but I do not want to wade through any of them and they may not show 'your version'.

Gyula
Hi yes something like this.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 21, 2019, 02:15:28 PM
" ITSU:
When we roughly take this 60mW times 5 we get 300mW total consumed by the leds which is about 1/3 of the
power available at the input (COP = 0.3)."

Pls. compare the coils magnetic directions!

Arne

Hi Arne,

yes, seen that, but i don't think the right image is a working setup, just a show of of available parts.
 

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on May 21, 2019, 02:44:37 PM
Hi AG,

My answer has been moved to this thread more appropiate for its topic: 
https://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg534604/#msg534604   
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 21, 2019, 02:53:55 PM
Is he selling a kit with parts mounted on nice "footboards" that will not operate correctly gathered together.
And people pays willingly  for that?
Maybe the perpendicular way is the only way that cerates some good effects?

/ Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 21, 2019, 04:34:51 PM

I don't know Arne, i tried the satellite coils (and big coil) in all possible positions and combinations, but the "all vertical" yields the best results.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on May 21, 2019, 05:00:40 PM
Thanks Itsu
 I suspected that because of my experience. I have been dealing / tinker with radio a good part of my life.
Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Dbowling on May 23, 2019, 08:15:28 AM
https://youtu.be/WWa81kmhVyc (https://youtu.be/WWa81kmhVyc)[/font]


This is a video of the generator I have built. I have released all the information necessary for replication, but so far no one I know of has built more than a one or two coil model to see if what I have shown will work. It is an expensive build. I know because I have built MANY versions of this machine to get to the point I am at now.


If anyone is interested in replicating, I can give you whatever data you need to be successful. Here is my data on my BIG machine which I show in the BACKGROUND of this video, but is NOT the one I recommend building as it will be prohibitively expensive, although I am willing to give info on it also. The machine is turned by an MY1020 Razor Scooter motor running on 24 volts at just under 12 amps, or a bit less than 300 watts. Some of that is recoverable, which none of you want to believe, but I will fight THAT battle another day. Output is around 130 volts at 1.4 amps per coil. The big machine has 12 coils so puts out between 1800-2000 watts.


The smaller machine I am going to talk about here, and which I show in the video, only has 10 coils, so the output is LESS. But it also uses less power to run, so there are advantages in the smaller machine. Cost is a BIG difference.


The magnets on the rotor need to be 1"x 3/4" neos. There should be at least 12 on each side of the rotor as I describe in the video, and ALWAYS an even number. One side of the rotor has positive magnets facing out, and the other side of the rotor has negative magnets facing out, the pair of magnets are attracted to each other through a very thing piece of plastic that is NOT machined out of the rotor when the holes for the magnets are created. This locks the magnets into the rotor so you do not have to worry about them EVER coming out...even when you WANT them to. The rotor also needs to be thick enough so that NO PART of the magnet extends above the surface of the rotor. This is incredibly important for both safety and tolerances. Air gap between rotor and coils is about 1/16 of an inch. Energy production of the coil is EXPONENTIAL to the decrease in air gap, so it needs to be TIGHT.


The coils are wound with 24 strands of #23 wire each 127 feet in length. One foot at each end is NOT wound on the coil, so the coil is wound with 125 foot strands. Eight strands are connected in series. So you have three wires going off the coil. Each wire is composed of eight strands connected in series. I hope that makes sense.


There are three issues that prevent most generators being run by an electric motor, and solving those problems makes this machine work.


1. As rotor magnets pass the iron cores of the coils there is an attraction of the magnet to the iron. The more coils you have, the more iron, so the more drag. This causes the motor to draw more amps, and with only a few coils in place, a stock electric motor will exceed the recommended amp draw and go up in smoke. With the design I am showing, whenever the rotor magnet is aligned between two coils on the stator, both of which it is attracted to, the magnet directly across the rotor is between two adjustable magnets in REPULSION mode. By adjusting the repulsion to equalize with the attraction, you get a free wheeling rotor. WITHOUT these repulsion magnets in place, my big machine draws more amps than the digital meter (30 amp meter) can measure. With them in place it draws 12 amps. The smaller machine will draw LESS.


2. The second issue is that when you put a generator coil under load, the self induction of the coil creates a magnetic field that repels the approaching magnet until it reaches top dead center on the coil, at which time the field flips polarity and attracts the rotor magnet as it is moving away. The coils I have described how to build, because of their increased capacitance, delay the self induction until such time as the magnet is aligned with the coil, at which time the repelling field is produced, pushing the rotor magnet away in the direction of rotation. You can reduce this motive force by reducing the rpm of the motor, and you WANT to do this. You do NOT want a Lenz assisted rotation of the rotor because it affects the output of the coil. Maximum output of the coil is achieved when Lenz neither delays nor accelerates the rotation of the rotor.


3. The third issue is heat. Constant changing of flux in iron cores produces heat and will MELT THE WIRE RIGHT OFF THE COIL if the generator is run for too long. This is the issue I am working on. Ferrite may reduce the heat. Heat sinks on the back end of the coils may reduce the heat. I have been using Gatorade bottles filled with water. The cores of my coils stick out the back of the bobbin a bit over an inch. I take the lid off a gatorade bottle and drill a hole in the cap that fits over the coil core. Then I epoxy the the cap onto the core, fill the bottle with water, and screw it into the lid. The water cools the core and the air cools the water. SO far it is working, but hopefully someone here will have some better ideas. If not, and I build a machine big enough to run my house, I know what I will use for a hot water heater.


One last thing. EVERY coil will speed up under load at the right frequency. The frequency is determined by the speed at which a SINGLE magnet moves from one side of the coil to the other. Putting more magnets on a rotor that is turning at the same rpm does NOT change this frequency. I know. I have tried. The frequency for coils with three strands 1000 feet long is 2800 rpm on the size rotors I am using with the size magnets I am using. With 12 strands of wire, each 250 feet long and four connected in series so STILL three wires 1000 feet long coming off the coil, that frequency drops to 1900 rpm. With 24 wires (8 strands in series) it drops even lower. You increase the capacitance of the coil by adding ADDITIONAL STRANDS in parallel and connecting them in series. The number of wires on the coil determine amperage output. In my case every coil has "3" wires even though those three wires are composed of strands wound in parallel and connected in series. The LENGTH of the wires determine voltage. All my coils have 3 wires 1000 feet long.  The increased capacitance of the coil as a result of the way it is wound lengthens the output pulse of the coil, so there is less "off time" on the scope with the higher capacity coil even though the rpm of the rotor is the same, the amount of wire is the same and the rotor is the same. 


This is a teaching machine. It will teach you a lot if you choose to build it. It is also COP>1 by quite a ways.
I am here to answer any questions I can, but please bear with me. I have SEVERAL versions of this machine in my shop. One has six coils on it. one 10, one 12. All use the same coil, but rotors are different, sizes are different, and once in a while I give info on one machine that really belongs to another. Can't help it. I'm just getting old.


I am not going to argue with ANYBODY here about whether this works or not. I have built too many of these and have had them running on my bench to put up with that nonsense. If you don't believe it works, DON"T build it. Up to you. Within the next couple months I will have one of these machines up and running in my shop, and can show some video. The big machine is at a lab for independent testing. The ten coil machine that was in pieces on the bench, I can't find the parts for because of the move from one house to another, so I am converting the one assembled machine that you saw in the video which holds 12 coils. I have to be able to use the opposing magnets, so I am basically putting three coils on each side of the rotor, and using the holes for the other three coils on each side of the rotor to put in apposing magnets. It won't put out as much power as either of the other machines, but it will prove my point, and I will have video of it running with inputs and outputs. I am not selling anything. No kits, no rotors, no coils, nothing. Maybe an autographed picture, but that's about it.
Dave
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 23, 2019, 08:39:50 AM
https://youtu.be/WWa81kmhVyc (https://youtu.be/WWa81kmhVyc)[/font]


This is a video of the generator I have built.
Dave

hi Dave, do you have some scematics, a pdf which shows how to build, your comments ? That would be interesting to study !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 23, 2019, 08:42:02 AM
Hi Arne,

yes, seen that, but i don't think the right image is a working setup, just a show of of available parts.
 

Itsu

the right image is a working setup, where all the lights and leds are light by the 9V input. In the kit, Rick mentions that it is in a "no load" situation.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 23, 2019, 08:43:56 AM
Is he selling a kit with parts mounted on nice "footboards" that will not operate correctly gathered together.
And people pays willingly  for that?
Maybe the perpendicular way is the only way that cerates some good effects?

/ Arne

You have so much to learn. Like me ! Well yes, if you are buying this kit, like me, you will have those questions answered ! The answer to your perpendicular question is : yes, and not only perpendicular.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on May 23, 2019, 08:49:52 AM
I don't know Arne, i tried the satellite coils (and big coil) in all possible positions and combinations, but the "all vertical" yields the best results.

Itsu

There is no question of perpendicularity actually ; but parallel, inline, and entanglements, and 30° to 45° are places where the wireless expresses itself.
Run two coils perpendicular and you will lose all transmission, as it seems !
There is an important notion in the RICK kit, which is called the mosquito poke...so, instead of running the small coils with the big one, you can revertly activate / resonate the big coil with the small one and see how a mosquito can move a giant. It is one important key point to learn in the kit, out of many, many more...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: endlessoceans on May 28, 2019, 02:29:24 PM
It is one important key point to learn in the kit, out of many, many more...

Yeh Rick

That "one" important point and the next and the next and the next just so you can sell endless kits and keep the Bedini train running.  Same as that scammer Murakami with his non stop books on secrets that go nowhere. 
You talk for 90 mins in your video on what could be stated in under a minute.  Its no different to the tactic that these pill and snake oil salesmen use.....long hours of waffling so that people just say "sell it to me already"....anything to just have the drivel stop.

You understand resonant circuits but there is no OU there.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on May 28, 2019, 10:30:24 PM

I made a new small coil as the dimensions given by Benfr earlier are wrong.

New small coil is on a 6cm former, 52 turns 0.7mm wire spanning 4cm.
Inductance measured is 144uH @ 100KHz with an unloaded Q of 71, see picture.

5nF cap (2x 10nF in series) in series with this coil gives a resonance frequency (loaded with a led bulb) of 190KHz.

Tuning the big coil also to 190 KHz gives best match, but as soon as the small coil with led bulb nears the big coil, the
big coil Q (and output and input) starts to decrease and tuning with its variable cap does not help.

At some point, the led bulb on the small coil turns on and produces 215mW of light while the big coil pulls 450mW or so.

Will do some more testing and make some more small coils for further tests.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 01, 2019, 12:14:31 AM
Tesla  autobiog on his magnifying transmitter:
Taken in the narrowest significance of the term, however, it is a resonant transformer which, besides possessing these qualities, is accurately proportioned to fit the globe and its electrical constants and properties, by virtue of which design it becomes highly efficient and effective in the wireless transmission of energy. Distance is then absolutely eliminated, there being no diminution in the intensity of the transmitted impulses. It is even possible to make the actions increase with the distance from the plant according to an exact mathematical law.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 01, 2019, 06:44:01 PM
Hi a.king21,

If you think what you quoted from Tesla has got anything to do with Rick F's kits in this recent topic, then just go ahead and prove that. 
If the quote has no any connection to the kits, then what is your point with that quote? 

You wrote this in Reply #327 (April 30, 2019) https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533875/#msg533875 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533875/#msg533875) :

"The output for the bigger coil is also massively increased ie 3.75 watts input gives a Heaviside magnetic output
equivalent to 900 watts according to the information I have been given. (I have not replicated it)."   

Have you replicated it since then and measured the 900 W output?  Or at least say 4.5 or 5 W output at the 3.75 W input?
I am sure everyone here would like to see the measurements on that, especially Itsu who did the trouble to replicate
the setup and his measurements clearly report underunity. 

Did Rick F. show the 900 W output in any of his videos?  If yes, please give a link to it. 

By the way, you have not returned to my question I asked from you in Reply #339.  It started with your post #334 :
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533890/#msg533890 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533890/#msg533890)

and this was my answer that included the question too: 
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533905/#msg533905 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533905/#msg533905) 

So what is it which insures a larger EM field from the transmitter coil when a gate driver is used?   

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 02, 2019, 07:18:29 PM
Tesla  autobiog on his magnifying transmitter:[/size]Taken in the narrowest significance of the term, however, it is a resonant transformer which, besides possessing these qualities, is accurately proportioned to fit the globe and its electrical constants and properties, by virtue of which design it becomes highly efficient and effective in the wireless transmission of energy. Distance is then absolutely eliminated, there being no diminution in the intensity of the transmitted impulses. It is even possible to make the actions increase[/size] with the distance from the plant according to an exact mathematical law.[/size]


The importance of good grounding in the transmission of electricity.


[/size]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0e84XyuTjo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on June 03, 2019, 07:04:47 PM
  aking:   What does this have to do with OU, or self running? Are we going to have free electricity in this way?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 04, 2019, 03:16:55 AM
The resonance system is the first one or two stages of the Don Smith system.  If proved then we can be confident of stages  three to five.  Stage three is the 1:4 or 4:1 quarter wave section,   stages 4 and five are the frequency reduction and the final resonant transformer at mains frequency. So it's a complicated process of resonance all the way to the final stages.  But you need a gauss meter to see the energy created.  The initial stage of resonance is the first one Don Smith claims led him to his discoveries. But at last we now have clarity with the Don Smith process which is identical to the Kapanadze process if you take a look at Kapanadze's patent applications. In my opinion it's worth the effort to learn these processes anyway because the ultimate energy comes from the electrons in the earth grounding. Which is exactly what Tesla said.(And Eric Dollard and Rick Friedrich and Don Smith etc etc.) There is no "overunity" it is simply a method of agitating the ambient background using magnetic resonance and seeing the multiplication of magnetic energy by the resonant system. A scope is useless in this field. Then you return the agitated electrons back to the earth ground ready for re-use. So we are not talking Kirchhoff's loop law  here. We are talking about Faraday's laws.In order for the system to work you need a sharp gradient ie a spike wave. Another name is Tesla's impulse technology.


If you can sit through this video the process is explained here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVnAU1FmCsg&list=UUu1hNQsr9YnkIjFkMAc3Npw&index=35


PS You need a GAUSS METER to see the energy or you are electronically blind and see only Kirchhoff's laws using meters and scopes.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 04, 2019, 09:25:31 AM
The resonance system is the first one or two stages of the Don Smith system.  If proved then we can be confident of stages  three to five.  Stage three is the 1:4 or 4:1 quarter wave section,   stages 4 and five are the frequency reduction and the final resonant transformer at mains frequency. So it's a complicated process of resonance all the way to the final stages.  But you need a gauss meter to see the energy created.  The initial stage of resonance is the first one Don Smith claims led him to his discoveries. But at last we now have clarity with the Don Smith process which is identical to the Kapanadze process if you take a look at Kapanadze's patent applications. In my opinion it's worth the effort to learn these processes anyway because the ultimate energy comes from the electrons in the earth grounding. Which is exactly what Tesla said.(And Eric Dollard and Rick Friedrich and Don Smith etc etc.) There is no "overunity" it is simply a method of agitating the ambient background using magnetic resonance and seeing the multiplication of magnetic energy by the resonant system. A scope is useless in this field. Then you return the agitated electrons back to the earth ground ready for re-use. So we are not talking Kirchhoff's loop law  here. We are talking about Faraday's laws.In order for the system to work you need a sharp gradient ie a spike wave. Another name is Tesla's impulse technology.


If you can sit through this video the process is explained here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVnAU1FmCsg&list=UUu1hNQsr9YnkIjFkMAc3Npw&index=35


PS You need a GAUSS METER to see the energy or you are electronically blind and see only Kirchhoff's laws using meters and scopes.
I entirly agree with you but 'Rick Friedrich' ;D doesn't he go on?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 05, 2019, 12:59:36 PM
Hi a.king21,

No offense but what you wrote is a fantastic techno hodgepodge... sorry to say. Similar to your earlier mentioning of
"disruptive discharge" for a max 18 Vpp square wave (which drives a resonant LC circuit) or of "Heaviside magnetic output"
or the COP 144 claim.   
The resonance system as the first one or two stages of the "DS system" have failed, it has not been proved to give
"energy multiplication".  Correct measurements by Itsu clearly resulted in underunity while Rick F or benfr clearly claimed
COP > 1 performance for the resonance system.   

Now you come along with measuring Gauss to "see the energy"...   Let's suppose that the "ultimate energy comes from the electrons in the earth grounding"  as you wrote.  Then such excess energy should manifest in driving a useful load, right?   
Why this excess energy is not demonstrated by Rick F or by benfr claiming that?   
To light a NE-2 neon bulb with the help of a resonant system is NOT energy amplification, you can do it for instance with
a step-up auto or normal transformer or with a single transistor oscillator running from 
a less than 1 V battery.  Voltage amplification - yes, energy amplification - no. 
 Remember that Nikola Tesla claimed "energy amplification" (but not with these words) only when he used up the energy
from a charged capacitor within very short time, ok?  http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm)   

A Gauss meter measures magnetic flux intensity and it is okay that near to a resonant LC circuit it would display much stronger magnetic fields
 than a non-resonant current would create in the same coil.  BUT how do you utilize the stronger field? 
The moment you load the resonant system the Q hence the field intensity reduces immediately and here it is totally 
irrelevant whether input energy comes from your signal generator or from earth grounding or even from both.   
Why this part of the story is not  shown correctly  from those claiming 'energy amplification' ? 

Faraday's laws have never been shown to manifest excess energy, you cannot escape with it as you now attempt to
get rid of the Kirchoff's loop law... but in vain. 
Everbody should show correct measurements to prove their claims. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 05, 2019, 02:07:37 PM
Gyula an interesting opposition documentation speech.
I hear what your saying and where your coming from and like wise Mr A.king.
Would that be the same Mr A King who made that interesting visit to Lithuania and
made the video of the aquarium driving the electric fire ?

I think you might well find to grab the quantity of energy you are looking for has to be made it's called BEMF,
and resonance and above all the correct protocol.

If you look through Don Smiths video's there is one section where he creates a rapid capacitor
charge that's almost instantaneous at a certain frequency, if you can find it, it might be of interest.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 06, 2019, 12:28:08 AM
Hi AlienGrey,

Yes I think he would be the same A.King like you guess.

I need to ask what you mean here on BEMF: is it the voltage spike created across a coil when its current is interrupted?  If yes, then it is okay it can be captured and it can be reused again,  though I have not seen from anyone that the this_way_captured energy provided COP > 1 performance when added to the input energy. 

But after you mentioned BEMF you continued with: "and resonance and above all the protocol" and I wonder how you mean resonance here when you grab the quantity of energy created by switching to get the BEMF ?  If this is how you meant, that is.

I would appreciate if someone would point to the video time where Don Smith shows the (almost instantaneous) rapid capacitor charge: I would like to understand how to benefit from it.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: endlessoceans on June 06, 2019, 01:04:21 AM
  aking:   What does this have to do with OU, or self running? Are we going to have free electricity in this way?

NO.  Never.  It's close to 100% efficiency and it creates no heat but the lost 'spray' to the environment means always under Unity. 

Only way to have the "appearance" of OU is to have a fuel burning somewhere and this is where the hidden batteries, galvanic or radioactive components come in.


"
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: web000x on June 06, 2019, 01:04:41 AM
Hi a.king21,

No offense but what you wrote is a fantastic techno hodgepodge... sorry to say. Similar to your earlier mentioning of
"disruptive discharge" for a max 18 Vpp square wave (which drives a resonant LC circuit) or of "Heaviside magnetic output"
or the COP 144 claim.   
The resonance system as the first one or two stages of the "DS system" have failed, it has not been proved to give
"energy multiplication".  Correct measurements by Itsu clearly resulted in underunity while Rick F or benfr clearly claimed
COP > 1 performance for the resonance system.   

Now you come along with measuring Gauss to "see the energy"...   Let's suppose that the "ultimate energy comes from the electrons in the earth grounding"  as you wrote.  Then such excess energy should manifest in driving a useful load, right?   
Why this excess energy is not demonstrated by Rick F or by benfr claiming that?   
To light a NE-2 neon bulb with the help of a resonant system is NOT energy amplification, you can do it for instance with
a step-up auto or normal transformer or with a single transistor oscillator running from 
a less than 1 V battery.  Voltage amplification - yes, energy amplification - no. 
 Remember that Nikola Tesla claimed "energy amplification" (but not with these words) only when he used up the energy
from a charged capacitor within very short time, ok?  http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm)   

A Gauss meter measures magnetic flux intensity and it is okay that near to a resonant LC circuit it would display much stronger magnetic fields
 than a non-resonant current would create in the same coil.  BUT how do you utilize the stronger field? 
The moment you load the resonant system the Q hence the field intensity reduces immediately and here it is totally 
irrelevant whether input energy comes from your signal generator or from earth grounding or even from both.   
Why this part of the story is not  shown correctly  from those claiming 'energy amplification' ? 

Faraday's laws have never been shown to manifest excess energy, you cannot escape with it as you now attempt to
get rid of the Kirchoff's loop law... but in vain. 
Everbody should show correct measurements to prove their claims. 

Gyula


I appreciate you taking the time to formulate these questions into a post.  I have been curious of a lot of the talking points you have highlighted, just less motivated to actually make a post..  Thanks for shining the light on the semantics. 


I don’t understand how one can say that a gauss meter can show the extra energy but a scope will not.  If there is any extra energy coming from the system, the current/voltage combinations should be able to be measured to BE COP>1.  This SHOULD be measurable, aside from just a gauss meter....


Dave
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: endlessoceans on June 06, 2019, 01:15:01 AM


There is no "overunity" it is simply a method of agitating the ambient background using magnetic resonance and seeing the multiplication of magnetic energy by the resonant system.

If you can sit through this video the process is explained here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVnAU1FmCsg&list=UUu1hNQsr9YnkIjFkMAc3Npw&index=35


PS You need a GAUSS METER to see the energy or you are electronically blind and see only Kirchhoff's laws using meters and scopes.

Gauss meter is not necessary just an agile mind and many experiments with good logging of cause and effect.

That's correct....NO OU.   You will see the expanding wave and the 'amplification' of current and resulting excellent efficiency.  Its so stark to todays tech that it looks like OU but when you cycle the batteries you see that it is not.  Unless viewers here are flat earthers then there will never be OU and thank goodness for that.

Could I sit through that nonsense book selling video?  Its was difficult and that's an hour I will never recover.  Sad thing is I know what Rick is talking about but he never even demonstrates loads or shows practical applications.  Let me be clear.....I don't want any info from this book seller because I know the Don Smith Tesla tech.  So don't think these comments are sour grapes but with all due respect the likes of Rick F are just book sellers.  He is mentally not right in the head and he waffles for hours what could be clearly demonstrated in 2 minutes.  The biggest take away from all his videos is.....BUY MY KITS!!!!   That's it!    The only people that buy this stuff are those that dream of OU and that somehow this will make their life better.  But instead they buy a very expensive kit.....learn nothing (because RF tells them nothing) and they could have just gone out and bought a solar panel with the same money and a very good charge controller.


SNAKE OIL is always sold with the salt and pepper of Truth.   Its like a big bag of potato crisps.....tastes good because of the small amount of salted seasoning but at the end of it all you just get a bellyache because its no real substance and not real food.     That's why society is full of fat people who diet for 5 mins and then go back to the gratification fake foods that taste good.  Kool Aid effect haha
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: endlessoceans on June 06, 2019, 01:28:53 AM
The last thing I will say on this matter is going back to one of Don Smits LOOOOOONG symposiums.  Don was another Long winded talker just like Bearden, Bedini and friedrich. 

Truth is elegant and simple.  You can state it simply and show it.

But getting back to Don.....do you remember his convention (I don't know which vid it was) but in the end when he finally hooked up that MASSIVE suitcase (and it was massive and heavy)…..nobody was allowed to look inside and DON STATED there were batteries in it!!…..so those engineers hooked up their meters to it in front of a room of 200 people and they ran it for 10 mins.  Do any of you even remember what happened????    The engineers were impressed with the efficiency but they were also able to SEE that the battery source was GOING DOWN slowly.BUt the room was so enamoured with the big bank of lights and the thousands of watts of power ONLY ONE person said something about the source draining.   Don then mumbles something about "yeh yeh it needs tuning and its slightly off tune" WHICH IS WHAT HE ALWAYS DID WHENEVER SOMEONE STATED SOMETHING CRITICAL.

don smith did not have OU.  He had Teslas ideal system of efficiency and you dont need spark gaps and massive coils for that
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 06, 2019, 03:06:21 AM

"The last thing I will say on this matter is going back to one of Don Smits LOOOOOONG symposiums.  Don was another Long winded talker just like Bearden, Bedini and friedrich. Truth is elegant and simple.  You can state it simply and show it."

Nice try endless oceans.


Explain how Don Smith obtained a granted patent for the Don Smith Effect.


You need a gauss meter or you are electronically and electrically blind to see the DSE  (Don Smith Effect)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 06, 2019, 08:11:25 AM
Dave (weetabix) whatever, what your missing like many others is explained by many on a lot of the Lithuanian threads
I can't point to any, I'm sick of it all truth be told but it is simple when you realise current is really a magnetic force like a dynamo,
then you have to stick your nano bemf pulse where it need be.

Gyula bemf that's the trick Smith won't talk about but bring in the current (magnetic flux) and it's gone.
PS all you need to measure magnetic flux is a hall chip a 5v reg and a meter simple
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: kolbacict on June 06, 2019, 11:06:32 AM
Quote
The resonance system as the first one or two stages of the "DS system" have failed, it has not been proved to give
"energy multiplication".  Correct measurements by Itsu clearly resulted in underunity while Rick F or benfr clearly claimed
COP > 1 performance for the resonance system. 
And by the quadratic dependence of the magnetic field energy on the current?  W=I^2L/2                   We have two identical coils on the same core connected in parallel. We supply current through them. When all the energy of the current goes into the energy of the magnetic field, we switch these coils from a parallel connection to serial ones using an ideal relay. What will happen?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 06, 2019, 11:55:28 AM
And by the quadratic dependence of the magnetic field energy on the current?  W=I^2L/2                   We have two identical coils on the same core connected in parallel. We supply current through them. When all the energy of the current goes into the energy of the magnetic field, we switch these coils from a parallel connection to serial ones using an ideal relay. What will happen?
you would lose it into the environment like an aerial works.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: kolbacict on June 06, 2019, 12:44:39 PM
But in an oscillating circuit, for example, all the energy of the magnetic field (well, almost all, except for the loss  :( ) goes back into the current, and then into the charge of the capacitor. And so many times. Nowhere is it dissipated in the air.  ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 06, 2019, 01:21:36 PM
But in an oscillating circuit, for example, all the energy of the magnetic field (well, almost all, except for the loss  :( ) goes back into the current, and then into the charge of the capacitor. And so many times. Nowhere is it dissipated in the air.  ;)
Tesla used a cap a bemf coil and a cap and a bar to loop in a circle so as no dc current loop.
work out how that worked a 'hair pin' circuit
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on June 06, 2019, 02:22:28 PM
https://web.archive.org/web/20050405050943/http://www.altenergy-pro.com/rec.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20050405050943/http://www.altenergy-pro.com/rec.htm)

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psiram.com%2Fde%2Findex.php%2FDon_Smith_Generator (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psiram.com%2Fde%2Findex.php%2FDon_Smith_Generator)


https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=8&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20040520&CC=MX&NR=NL02000035A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=8&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20040520&CC=MX&NR=NL02000035A&KC=A#)
MX....  (A) , granted patents are indicated by (B) or (C) !
 ;) upps,  na segunda pagina do "documento original" : smells like "phase shift" ;D

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=MX&NR=NL02000035A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20040520&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=MX&NR=NL02000035A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20040520&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)         

        Go to "download" + castellano ( spanish) understanding

https://overunity.com/14583/the-so-called-don-smith-generator/ (https://overunity.com/14583/the-so-called-don-smith-generator/)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: kolbacict on June 06, 2019, 04:22:15 PM
What is benf? is a benf coil a bifilar of Tesla?
"Hair pin" is alegory?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on June 06, 2019, 04:44:47 PM
BEMF = "Back" EMF 
////       https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/back-emf/ (https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/back-emf/)






Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on June 06, 2019, 05:33:44 PM
Sorry I see that you asked what is BENF


that’s the new members handle who is supplying information or trying to supply information on Rick F technology
 Apologize for my misunderstanding


 Chet
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 06, 2019, 10:55:44 PM
What is benf? is a benf coil a bifilar of Tesla?
"Hair pin" is alegory?
What is a BENF ? no it's BEMF it's any coil that can produce a back EMF if you don't know what that is get an old relay with a 12 or 24 volt coil and put a neon bulb across the coil then dab a battery across the coil and the neon will flash that's BEMF
a jewel thief works the same way but different amounts of fly back.

The hair-pin refers to the waveform it's narrow and only a very narrow pulse a couple of nano meters  width a 10 to the -9 width or so.
A pulse like that is very special as a magnetic field takes time to manifest.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 07, 2019, 12:22:22 AM
What is benf? is a benf coil a bifilar of Tesla?
"Hair pin" is alegory?

In most forums about overunity or free energy the term "hair pin" refers to a device designed by Nicola Tesla.  It is basically a device which consists of a long bare wire bent into the shape of a "hair pin" or a long narrow u shape.  When fed at the bottom with a signal that is the right frequency to resonate with the hair pin wire there will be standing nodes of voltage and current in different locations along the wire.  This is the same thing seen in any radio antenna that is tuned to resonate and transmit the signal of the transmitter.  There is a tremendous amount of garbage posted on this and many other forums about the hair pin circuit.  To really understand the circuit you have to take the time to learn about radio frequency circuits and how they operate.  In particular you need to learn about "standing waves".


The American Radio Relay League has for many years produced books called the "Radio Operators Handbook".  Every few years they produce a new one to include the latest technology.  But even one 20 years old will have the correct information about standing waves and can help you understand a lot about all aspects of electronics.  You can find them on Ebay fairly cheaply if you get an older copy.

Carroll

And as Chet has already mentioned benf is the user name of one of the members of this forum.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 07, 2019, 12:13:34 PM
What is benf? is a benf coil a bifilar of Tesla?
"Hair pin" is alegory?

Funny how a simple question containing a typo (benf instead of bemf) can cause a train of confusing answers/posts  :)
No wonder we do not accomplish anything on these forums  :o

To complete this train of errors and confusion,  its not member benf,  but benfr.


Regards Itsu   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on June 07, 2019, 08:44:20 PM
No wonder we do not accomplish anything on these forums  :o

You have a lot more patience than I do Itsu. :D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 07, 2019, 09:33:35 PM
BEMF which type are we talking about here ?
and there is no such thing as a standing wave you mean an in phase one or a 180 degree out of phase one'

and if ET can get here faster than light speed what's the connection with what your trying to do ?
and you cant generate voltage at the same time in a Akula or Ruslan device Why do you think that might be ?
you need to solve that problem to move on
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 08, 2019, 05:42:19 AM
A further point on the Don SMith effect as per his patent.  In a telephone conversation Don stated that there is a further process to his system to get OU.  It's this process which needs to be proved or disproved and it requires some further understanding of the  resonant process.
The initial resonant system is just the start of the process - I am only the messenger here trying to point the theory out.
The claim is that you have to reduce the frequency at resonance to useable frequency .  In order to do that you need to correct the impulse resonant form into DC and then step down the frequency at resonance. The stepping down is claimed to work the same way as a transformer ie reducing the frequency increases the power.


So two choices. POh Pooh the whole concept or get on board  and try it.
Simple.


Just stop shooting the messenger.
Don't take my word that conventional theory is wrong  -  take  MIT as your bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQN7Dke9pX8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQN7Dke9pX8)


Ha ha ha
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 08, 2019, 03:37:33 PM
A further point on the Don SMith effect as per his patent.  In a telephone conversation Don stated that there is a further process to his system to get OU.  It's this process which needs to be proved or disproved and it requires some further understanding of the  resonant process.
The initial resonant system is just the start of the process - I am only the messenger here trying to point the theory out.
The claim is that you have to reduce the frequency at resonance to useable frequency .  In order to do that you need to correct the impulse resonant form into DC and then step down the frequency at resonance. The stepping down is claimed to work the same way as a transformer ie reducing the frequency increases the power.




So two choices. POh Pooh the whole concept or get on board  and try it.
Simple.

Just stop shooting the messenger.
Don't take my word that conventional theory is wrong  -  take  MIT as your bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQN7Dke9pX8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQN7Dke9pX8)

Ha ha ha
Well if you have a gyrating magnetic field in the center it's bound to modulate
and induce energy into the circuit.

Ever get that feeling once in a while  8) :o
Is this the type of circuit your looking for it's a crude 30khz in and a modulated 50hz out,
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 08, 2019, 05:31:17 PM
Well if you have a gyrating magnetic field in the center it's bound to modulate
and induce energy into the circuit.

Ever get that feeling once in a while  8) :o

Hi AG,

Can you tell more about this circuit?
I don't understand Russian.

Why the second FET is on the high side?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 08, 2019, 10:43:25 PM
Hi AG,

Can you tell more about this circuit?
I don't understand Russian.

Why the second FET is on the high side?
re A Kings demodulation into a lower frequency G2 but its just a block diagram
But 50 and 60 hz is very wast full.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 09, 2019, 12:10:53 AM
...
Explain how Don Smith obtained a granted patent for the Don Smith Effect.

You need a gauss meter or you are electronically and electrically blind to see the DSE  (Don Smith Effect)
Don Smith did not get a patent, he got a patent application number as member lancaIV explained the meaning of the suffix (A) in Don Smith's Mexican patent application  number MXNL02000035(A).  Link to the application is here: 
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20040520&CC=MX&NR=NL02000035A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20040520&CC=MX&NR=NL02000035A&KC=A#)     

I translated some of the relevant text of the application from Spanish to English by google translator:
...
The invention is distinguished in that it is a new and advantageous system whose technology allows to build a transformer, generator of electrical energy, which uses magnetic energy, which by other systems of transformation and generation of electric power, is Irradiated, discarded and wasted. However, by this invention, said magnetic energy becomes profitable electrical energy. Gauss meters show that almost all the energy of conventional electromagnetic devices is radiated back to the surrounding environment of the electromagnetic device, being wasted. In the case of conventional generator transformers, a radical change in the physical construction allows better access to the available energy. Through this Invention it is discovered that creating a dlpole and inserting condenser plates at an appropriate angle (90 ° ninety degrees) where the current flows, allows the magnetic waves to become useful electrical energy (Coulombs). The magnetic waves that pass through the capacitor plates do not degrade, allowing access to all the available energy of the same. One or more sets of capacitor plates as desired can be used for greater efficiency, glued or separated, and with connections in which the generated voltage is collected. The system of parallel perpendicular capacitor plates can be of different materials, shapes and sizes depending on where they are used. Each group or game produces an exact copy of all the force and effect of the energy present in the magnetic waves. The original (magnetic) energy source is not reduced as it is in conventional transformers.
... 
The invention is based on the generation of an electromagnetic dipole (a metal or plasma bar) (for example by means of a potential generator perpendicular to the magnetic flux) and the use of capacitor plates or capacitors as the receiver component and conductor of electric current. The dipole induced in the invention can be created from any resonant substance such as a metal rod, coil and plasma tubes having positive and negative components interacting. When the plasma is used as a magnetic generator, it can be coupled around the plasma system, a system of magnetic generators (for example coils) which in turn can be used as receivers and conductors of electric current. Having as a result that the component of current induction is transformed into useful electrical energy. At the same time, the invention can be self-sufficient, that is to say, once the invention has been started, it can auto-feed itself, by means of a coil connected to the electric power outlet, which generates the same energy quality as that used when starting.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS (FIGURES):
The dipole at the right angle allows the magnetic flux that surrounds it to intercept the condensing plates placed at the proper angle. The electrons present are attracted, in such a way that the electrical component of the electron is gathered by the condenser plates. As an essential part of the invention we have the formation by magnetic means of an active dipole with north and south components (figure 1). 
... 
SUMMARY 
The invention relates to a transformer generating electrical energy by electromagnetic means through a potential generator and the use of plates (or coils) capacitors or capacitors as a magnetic energy receiving component that is transformed to electric current. Having as a result that the component of current Induction is transformed into useful electrical energy.   


All this sounds as if Don Smith wanted to get energy by superimposing an Electrical field with a Magnetic field, obtained from two sources and orienting the two fields in 90 degree angle with respect to each other like represented in the Poyinting vector description (Maxwell equations). 

I do not think that such method i.e. applying the Poyinting vector model backwards would yield useful output energy if at all.  I will be stand corrected any time someone builds such setup and proves it can self run as Don Smith claimed in his text.

You also wrote: 

A further point on the Don SMith effect as per his patent.  In a telephone conversation Don stated that there is a further process to his system to get OU.  It's this process which needs to be proved or disproved and it requires some further understanding of the  resonant process....
I wish you good luck to apply the further process needed to get OU. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 09, 2019, 02:24:32 AM
Don said the following re the plasma tube device.(audio 2003) "First of all you have to change your radio frequency and you change it to pulsating DC. Once you've done that you can use it just like ordinary electricity.."  The reason I am banging the drum about the frequency reduction component is that it features in Kapanadze's patent application in the L2 part of his device, so there is a comon thread to both Don SMith and Kapanadze.  Rick also would not give me any details saying it's too dangerous because volts can become amps.


So come on guys  (and gals)  especially the EEs.  How do you reduce frequency in an electrical circuit with a gain???
Even how to reduce the frequency without a loss would be good.
 Funny how the silence about this subject on the internet  is DEAFENING!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 09, 2019, 02:50:11 AM
Don said the following re the plasma tube device.(audio 2003) "First of all you have to change your radio frequency and you change it to pulsating DC. Once you've done that you can use it just like ordinary electricity.."  The reason I am banging the drum about the frequency reduction component is that it features in Kapanadze's patent application in the L2 part of his device, so there is a comon thread to both Don SMith and Kapanadze.  Rick also would not give me any details saying it's too dangerous because volts can become amps.


So come on guys  (and gals)  especially the EEs.  How do you reduce frequency in an electrical circuit with a gain???
Even how to reduce the frequency without a loss would be good.
 Funny how the silence about this subject on the internet  is DEAFENING!
2 ways i would have thought as Don did it charging up capacitors with timing RC circuit but you still have the voltage now and you have amps in your caps, with out some kind of feed back cut off circuit.

Or use a transformer wound on a tube and re modulate it in blocks like a train carriage and some kind of cut off circuit control.

Remember your trip to Lithuania and the electric fire and the aquarium.  think about how that worked.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 09, 2019, 11:48:08 AM

A.king21,

it is just too simple to hide behind the phrase "don't shoot the messenger".
 
If you are willing to spout claims which are not normally understood or even confusing, then you can expect all kind of comments and questions.


What do you mean by:
"you have to reduce the frequency at resonance to useable frequency"?
And: 
"you need to correct the impulse resonant form into DC and then step down the frequency at resonance"?


# What is a "useable frequency"?  50Hz?  60Hz?  180Khz?
# Reducing a frequency (guess of an LC circuit) is easy, just increase the L or C, is that what you mean?
# what is "the impulse resonant form"?  Do you mean the input signal into a resonant LC circuit?
  Its pulsed DC in my case (gate driver).
# what do you mean by "and then step down the frequency at resonance"?  How would one do that without disturbing resonance?


You (DS, RF) just cannot "think up" something that might work (step down the frequency at resonance) and then challence the EE's to come up with a solution.

Its no wonder to me why "the silence about this subject on the internet  is DEAFENING!" an EE would not touch this.

The use of a resistor to pull the frequency down to suit the step-down transformer in one of DS famous contraptions using an ARRL table, see the PDF page 89 / bottom in this link:  https://tinyurl.com/yymrqcsl  is already long debunked as nonsense.

I am still building, testing and measuring the Big and small coils, but all attempts up till now show the same results as in my previous tests.

Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 09, 2019, 01:17:43 PM
A.king21,

it is just too simple to hide behind the phrase "don't shoot the messenger".
 
If you are willing to spout claims which are not normally understood or even confusing, then you can expect all kind of comments and questions.


What do you mean by:
"you have to reduce the frequency at resonance to useable frequency"?
And: 
"you need to correct the impulse resonant form into DC and then step down the frequency at resonance"?


# What is a "useable frequency"?  50Hz?  60Hz?  180Khz?
# Reducing a frequency (guess of an LC circuit) is easy, just increase the L or C, is that what you mean?
# what is "the impulse resonant form"?  Do you mean the input signal into a resonant LC circuit?
  Its pulsed DC in my case (gate driver).
# what do you mean by "and then step down the frequency at resonance"?  How would one do that without disturbing resonance?


You (DS, RF) just cannot "think up" something that might work (step down the frequency at resonance) and then challence the EE's to come up with a solution.

Its no wonder to me why "the silence about this subject on the internet  is DEAFENING!" an EE would not touch this.

The use of a resistor to pull the frequency down to suit the step-down transformer in one of DS famous contraptions using an ARRL table, see the PDF page 89 / bottom in this link:  https://tinyurl.com/yymrqcsl (https://tinyurl.com/yymrqcsl)  is already long debunked as nonsense.

I am still building, testing and measuring the Big and small coils, but all attempts up till now show the same results as in my previous tests.

Regards Itsu

Hi Itsu,

The part I highlighted in red is the very reason I decided Don Smith was either very confused or a scam artist.  As I think you know I am a Ham so I was already pretty familiar with the ARRL handbook.  I was also familiar with that chart that Don used very incorrectly to make his claim.  Up until I saw that in one of his videos I thought he might actually have something.  When I saw that I then became very skeptical and then the more I saw the more I realized he was spouting out a bunch of garbage.   His claim that a neon sign transformer was already OU because the open output voltage times the shorted output current was more power than the input is also a false claim.  You measure output power by measuring both the current and voltage while under load as anyone with any electronics training already knows.  Those are only two of the red flags I saw while watching some of his videos.

As I have said before,   I like Rick,  but I am very sorry to see he has fallen for the baloney put out by Don Smith.


Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on June 09, 2019, 01:30:02 PM
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-NLBSBRsBM) guy sums it up in his first couple of sentences.   ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on June 09, 2019, 01:49:10 PM
citfta
May I ask two questions ?

1. Is it true that resistance in radio LC circuit will change Q factor and make resonant "point" wider ?2. Can you make LC circuit of high Q factor and then connect proper antenna and have standing wave inside it without radiating EM wave with the same amps and voltage rise as in LC circuit ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 09, 2019, 02:00:16 PM
Well firstly, in response to Rick's "phase conjugate mirror" claim.  Yesterday I ran the kit for 3 hours and the voltage on the gate driver did not move - so something interesting was happening.  (I had several extra coils). So I was lighting several leds and powering the gate driver without loss.




I was hoping from help from the community not attacks.


So I will bow out gracefully and say I cannot prove Don Smith one way or the other.
  I will end my discussions on this subject with Rick's reply in  the following youtube post.


"We are presently doing some additions to the kit which will address that. You are dealing with high frequency so you have to have high frequency parts. The LEDs are slow diodes and show only a fraction of the output on purpose. The purpose of the kit is not to see how much OU we can get but to learn about sensitive tuning before you get into the heavy output amplification. The high frequency needs to be converted to the frequency of the loads people are using. Capacitors, diodes and related parts need to be fast enough for the 1.25MHz, regular parts will not give you very much at all. You can run the coils at 180kHz with 5nf caps as I do when I use the regular coils with the big coil at my meetings. That is a significantly lower frequency to work with. You could go with lower frequency still with a bigger cap but I find the 100pf cap range to be about the best (and the higher the frequency the more energy can be multiplied). Converting the HF to usable low frequency is another whole matter where there is just as much lack of experience as in creating resonance. You have to get into the R (resistor) side of an RLC circuit and/or the RC side. In the Don Smith book I show the pages from the video where Don shows the three resonant waves with the RLC circuit. The first is the regular damped wave which is called positive. The second is the standing wave (which we can get into with phase conjugate mirroring) which is called zero. The third is the increasing or trumpet wave which is negative (resistance). The third allows the matched resistor to (as Don says) pull out the frequency (lower) while adding amplitude or capacity. This is like a voltage transformer, but rather a frequency transformer. Both do not sacrifice power in the conversion so that as you lower the frequency you increase the capacity in the charging capacitor accordingly. [But when you don't convert the frequency you just get the energy level of the capacity as if the frequency was converted when using low frequency parts and loads.] So you have to go to the charts in the ARRL books and find the right resistor to match the system. So this something people have to do and learn for themselves. It's hard to come to grips with in that a resistor is used to being a load, and in this case it is a negative resistor for the purpose of transformation of the energy. Don addresses these things, but very little. I did what I could in the Don Smith book to show you some actual pictures of his models where he was doing that, but he never gave specific details of any one system. No one, including me, are going to give out all the part numbers and specific values of every part we use as this is where people have to do that for themselves. I'll get into this more as soon as I can catch up with orders and do one other thing with this kit first. The Don Smith book was to put all the details Don gave into one place without modifying that with commentary or words from other people (including me). The Resonance book with kit is important to learn from before that book. But another application book would be good to do (but may never get done because it would probably cross a dangerous line...). Right now it is up to people to figure out the several stages. We did the resonance stage already, so people have to figure out how to replace the frequency generator with a better system that rings the bell to allow self-oscillation rather than forced. Then they have to learn the conventional process of converting the frequency as mentioned. Then transform the voltage if necessary. You can learn about these in the Don Smith book enough to make it work and understand it. I show some other commercial devices that did these processes, so people can look at existing tech to see how it is done. But I am limited to what I can show specifically for several reasons..."


Good luck with your experimenting and I am done now.

BYE.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 09, 2019, 02:22:58 PM

I was hoping from help from the community not attacks.



I am sorry that you feel someone pointing out very basic well known electronic fundamentals is somehow an attack.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 09, 2019, 02:27:49 PM
citfta
May I ask two questions ?

1. Is it true that resistance in radio LC circuit will change Q factor and make resonant "point" wider ?2. Can you make LC circuit of high Q factor and then connect proper antenna and have standing wave inside it without radiating EM wave with the same amps and voltage rise as in LC circuit ?

Yes, changing the resistance in a LC circuit does change the Q and that in turn changes the width of the frequency response.
I don't understand your last question.  If you connect a tuned LC circuit to a properly  tuned antenna it WILL radiate an EM wave.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 09, 2019, 05:51:34 PM
Hi Itsu,

The part I highlighted in red is the very reason I decided Don Smith was either very confused or a scam artist.  As I think you know I am a Ham so I was already pretty familiar with the ARRL handbook.  I was also familiar with that chart that Don used very incorrectly to make his claim.  Up until I saw that in one of his videos I thought he might actually have something.  When I saw that I then became very skeptical and then the more I saw the more I realized he was spouting out a bunch of garbage.   His claim that a neon sign transformer was already OU because the open output voltage times the shorted output current was more power than the input is also a false claim.  You measure output power by measuring both the current and voltage while under load as anyone with any electronics training already knows.  Those are only two of the red flags I saw while watching some of his videos.

As I have said before,   I like Rick,  but I am very sorry to see he has fallen for the baloney put out by Don Smith.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Hi Carroll,

yes that claim that a neon sign transformer was already OU is another goof up of him that opened up the eyes of many.


Anyway, it don't look like i will get any answers on my questions, so i will await my gaussmeter to arrive
and do some tests with it to see if i can find some extra energy with it.

Itsu


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 09, 2019, 06:52:43 PM
Hi Carroll,

yes that claim that a neon sign transformer was already OU is another goof up of him that opened up the eyes of many.


Anyway, it don't look like i will get any answers on my questions, so i will await my gaussmeter to arrive
and do some tests with it to see if i can find some extra energy with it.

Itsu
Yes Hmm I can already see a problem with this test that result in nothing being observed some how.
Why because the correct protocol wont be practiced in it's test as you most probably don't have the correct apparatus to do it with as a cheep'o  device will be just too slow unless your going to lash out into the 5 or 600 region. Watch the 3 vid's Philippine guy made by Ismael Aviso on how it works secret.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 10, 2019, 02:12:02 AM
Hi Carroll,

yes that claim that a neon sign transformer was already OU is another goof up of him that opened up the eyes of many.


Anyway, it don't look like i will get any answers on my questions, so i will await my gaussmeter to arrive
and do some tests with it to see if i can find some extra energy with it.

Itsu

Don believe that HF (till 200khz, above that it is constant) is efficient above COP = 1.
All we have to do is use it. Convert it to usable energy.
That is his claim!
Gaussmeter will maybe show points of magnetic flux density or magnetic induction in the CGS (metric) system which name is the gauss, of higher flux density energy.
Which can be true!
But, extracting useful energy method from that points is something which you have to discover, yet, if you find one!
So, long way ahead! If you have a will to share, I am excited as you are, because I can't do it.

My best wish, and keep the fingers.!
Good luck!

This is something new, so, maybe it can yield desired results.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 11, 2019, 01:20:32 AM
Well firstly, in response to Rick's "phase conjugate mirror" claim.  Yesterday I ran the kit for 3 hours and the voltage on the gate driver did not move - so something interesting was happening.  (I had several extra coils). So I was lighting several leds and powering the gate driver without loss.

....
The voltage does not change (at least easily noticeably) on the gate driver because most decent gate drivers have under 1 Ohm output resistance and behave as a voltage source like a battery. 

So either the AC output current from the gate driver or the resonant AC voltage across the L or the C member of the series LC transmitter (TX) circuit should be checked how they change when you couple some extra receiver coils to the L member of the transmitter coil. 

What should also be known here is that if the series TX circuit gets detuned from resonance or you start coupling receiver coils
(with LED lamp loads on them) to the TX coil, then even if you carefully retune both the TX and RX circuits to resonance,  the impedance of the series LC circuit  (that loads the output of the gate driver) increases. 
This manifests in a smaller output current from the gate driver and a smaller voltage level across the L and C members of the transmitter. (This latter is shown by Itsu and can also be seen even in Rick F's video, on their oscilloscopes.) 

So you did not power the gate driver without loss, unfortunately, you misguided yourself by voltage measurement on the gate driver.  The "phase conjugate mirror" is a technical hodgepodge expression here, sorry to say. 
By the way, from Itsu measurements and videos you should already have gathered guidance what to check and where.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 11, 2019, 04:12:47 AM
The voltage does not change (at least easily noticeably) on the gate driver because most decent gate drivers have under 1 Ohm output resistance and behave as a voltage source like a battery. 

So either the AC output current from the gate driver or the resonant AC voltage across the L or the C member of the series LC transmitter (TX) circuit should be checked how they change when you couple some extra receiver coils to the L member of the transmitter coil. 

What should also be known here is that if the series TX circuit gets detuned from resonance or you start coupling receiver coils
(with LED lamp loads on them) to the TX coil, then even if you carefully retune both the TX and RX circuits to resonance,  the impedance of the series LC circuit  (that loads the output of the gate driver) increases. 
This manifests in a smaller output current from the gate driver and a smaller voltage level across the L and C members of the transmitter. (This latter is shown by Itsu and can also be seen even in Rick F's video, on their oscilloscopes.) 

So you did not power the gate driver without loss, unfortunately, you misguided yourself by voltage measurement on the gate driver.  The "phase conjugate mirror" is a technical hodgepodge expression here, sorry to say. 
By the way, from Itsu measurements and videos you should already have gathered guidance what to check and where.

Gyula


Yes you are right. It is an honor to be mentored by such a great experimenter like you.   I would dearly like to see your builds.  I think I would learn a lot.  Anyway I have other projects to deal with now and will be leaving the experiments alone for a while.
And there are obviously no similarities between Don Smith and Kapanadze who are both probably frauds. And VAR is just an angle on a scope - nothing to see there  - move on. And I am sure that Kirchhoff's laws are immutable and work on every single occasion.
You have won Gyula.  Enjoy your victory. As you say there is no OU and no magnetic energy to speak of - it's all just a figment of Don Smith's imagination. And there is no increase of magnetic energy when you attach an earth ground, because the earth does not have any way of transmitting magnetic energy into a circuit.  And you cannot have a light bulb filament  made from bamboo cane either. Everyone knows that. After all the laws of physics are never wrong.  On that we can be sure. And of course there is no increase in magnetic energy when you activate a neon sign transformer or a pulsating HV module- everyone knows that.  After all you cannot get more out of a circuit than you put in because Kirchhoff's loop law is never wrong.
Enjoy your victory Gyula.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 11, 2019, 04:40:53 AM

Yes you are right. It is an honor to be mentored by such a great experimenter like you.   I would dearly like to see your builds.  I think I would learn a lot.  Anyway I have other projects to deal with now and will be leaving the experiments alone for a while.
And there are obviously no similarities between Don Smith and Kapanadze who are both probably frauds. And VAR is just an angle on a scope - nothing to see there  - move on. And I am sure that Kirchhoff's laws are immutable and work on every single occasion.
You have won Gyula.  Enjoy your victory. As you say there is no OU and no magnetic energy to speak of - it's all just a figment of Don Smith's imagination. And there is no increase of magnetic energy when you attach an earth ground, because the earth does not have any way of transmitting magnetic energy into a circuit.  And you cannot have a light bulb filament  made from bamboo cane either. Everyone knows that. After all the laws of physics are never wrong.  On that we can be sure. And of course there is no increase in magnetic energy when you activate a neon sign transformer or a pulsating HV module- everyone knows that.  After all you cannot get more out of a circuit than you put in because Kirchhoff's loop law is never wrong.
Enjoy your victory Gyula.

Gyula is right!

But it does not mean that he want to destroy you. Continue your work and research. We need people like Gyula to show us our possible pitfalls!
So, don't just abandon idea. Try to expand it and find something new in there.
Every experiment needs and takes a time and effort. Who is trying, at the end will find something. That counts!

Good luck to you, and thanks to people like Gyula, they help with experience!
It is not about victory. Nobody wins!
Victory is BS until we all wins! It will come, sooner or later!

Cheers!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 11, 2019, 11:02:01 AM

Wise words WhatIsIt,  nonbody here is trying to destroy anyone else.

For me its a battle between believes based on knowledge, facts and traditional education on one side,
and believes based on self tought experiments and (unproven) results shown in video's on the other side.

Both believes can be very strong.

But the result should allways be that at the end there is an "effect" that can create extra power and
can be shown and replicated and therefor measured.


So come on A.king21,  don't give up so easily, let Gyula be your guide pulling you back to mother earth so now
and then.    You (and me and others) can only learn from it.


Be aware of language barriers which can unintentionally cause phrases to come out different as originally meant.


Regards Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 11, 2019, 11:52:32 AM
Here is a whats calmed to be a working yoke wave form however the 'current' waveform appears attenuated or clipped on the negative half cycle be aware also that 'current' is also a magnetic influence in this pinch effect wave, is this what your ignoring which is quite fast and I doubt any cheapo hall device will detect.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 11, 2019, 04:06:12 PM
Itsu:  One further point.  When the phase conjugate mirror occured the coils went stone cold and the earth wire went stone cold. Also the big coil went stone cold.


Try this.  Measure the gauss on your big coil at start up.
Tune the big coil in and out of resonance. What does the gauss meter show?


Then attach a ground wire to the negative of your big coil at resonance . what do you see?
Then attach the ground wire to the positive of your big coil - what do you see?
Turn on a plasma ball and compare the gauss measurement.  What do you see?
Turn on a HV module and measure the gauss.  What do you see?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 11, 2019, 08:24:04 PM
Itsu:  One further point.  When the phase conjugate mirror occured the coils went stone cold and the earth wire went stone cold. Also the big coil went stone cold.


Try this.  Measure the gauss on your big coil at start up.
Tune the big coil in and out of resonance. What does the gauss meter show?


Then attach a ground wire to the negative of your big coil at resonance . what do you see?
Then attach the ground wire to the positive of your big coil - what do you see?
Turn on a plasma ball and compare the gauss measurement.  What do you see?
Turn on a HV module and measure the gauss.  What do you see?

It will be easier that you show your measurements, so he can compare it.
That way we all can see and assist on the results.
This is new approach with gauss meter, and new method. Which can yield some conclusions.

So, my fingers up!
We are all listening!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 11, 2019, 10:52:00 PM

...

Hi a.king21,

I am smiling at your remarks fraught with malice.  :)   

By the way, when writing on such forums I never consider to defeat anybody nor to be in a winning situation.  Correct science is in focus, that is all.  And I never comment topics on which I have no either (already proven) theoretically or experimentally correct knowledge.  And I often write: I will always be stand corrected should correct measurements prove me wrong,  I will always acknowledge that.  So just go ahead and show your measurements.   

It is easy to write about coils and earth wire going stone cold: make a video with temperature measurements by an infra thermometer.

And I have already explained to you: when an LC circuit is excited by an AC current whose frequency is the same as the resonant frequency of the LC circuit, the EM field (which includes the magnetic field of course) definitely increases to a maximum and then decreases as you tune the circuit out of resonance, your flux meter can show that.  But you have not shown any extra output power or energy: why?

When you attach a ground wire to the negative or to the positive of your big coil, the first big question is whether your coil is driven fully ground independently or not by your gate driver (or by your function generator)? 
Normally, the negative of the gate driver is at ground mainly from the function generator and / or from your power supply and this ground may connect to the mains ground what then you connect to a ground wire: you need to check for possible ground loops etc.  And in such situation when you ground the other side (the positive one) of the big coil you virtually kill or greatly attenuate the resonant voltage across the coil.  Demonstrate it if these are not so. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tomd on June 12, 2019, 02:19:02 AM
I think this thread which discusses electrostatic induction rather than magnetic induction may apply to Don's circuits.
https://overunity.com/18239/the-solution/msg535167/#new (https://overunity.com/18239/the-solution/msg535167/#new)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 12, 2019, 01:50:47 PM
Itsu:  One further point.  When the phase conjugate mirror occured the coils went stone cold and the earth wire went stone cold. Also the big coil went stone cold.


Try this.  Measure the gauss on your big coil at start up.
Tune the big coil in and out of resonance. What does the gauss meter show?


Then attach a ground wire to the negative of your big coil at resonance . what do you see?
Then attach the ground wire to the positive of your big coil - what do you see?
Turn on a plasma ball and compare the gauss measurement.  What do you see?
Turn on a HV module and measure the gauss.  What do you see?

Thanks A.king21,

i will try to do these tests when my gaussmeter arrives (more a Magnetic- and Electric field tester).

But as also mentioned by Gyula, there will be ground(loop) problems when using my gate driver and scope,
so not all your tests are doable.

See my present circuit of the gate driver, FG and Big coil.

Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 12, 2019, 05:29:52 PM

Itsu:

You can try isolating from the ground loop using a capacitor which is a blocking device.
Alternatively you can use a battery operated  signal generator.
You can also use the left terminal of a car battery or similar as your ground. (Tesla and Kapanadze).
What we are looking for in the "ground" is a good source of electrons.
Even your body will work but I do not recommend it for any length of time as it is not healthy.
If you use your body you will get varying results due to parasitic capacitance between your body and the big coil.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 12, 2019, 06:06:45 PM

OK, i can use a battery operated FG (5V) and run the gate driver on 12V also from a battery.
Then without using the scope, i am free to use a ground wire anywhere.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 12, 2019, 09:48:34 PM

Ok, i have no gaussmeter yet, but tried some things.

I used a FG (5V) on a battery directly to the Big coil LC, see circuit.
I used 2 scope probes in differential mode (CH2 - CH3) across the coil.

I set the FG to 180Khz (5V DC Square wave 50% Duty Cycle) and tune C to resonance.
Result is Math trace red (CH2 - CH3) shows 278V sine wave, temp top coil 22.9°C, bottom 22.5°C, see screenshot 1

Connection earth ground to top lead coil and retune C to resonance.
Result is Math trace red (CH2 - CH3) shows 248V sine wave, temp top coil 23°C, bottom 22.6°C, see screenshot 2

Connection earth ground to bottom lead coil and retune C for resonance.
Result is Math trace red (CH2 - CH3) shows 282V sine wave, temp top coil 22.9°C, bottom 22.5°C, see screenshot 3

I tried this severall times, also with increased time to allow heating and/or cooling.
But temperature stayed within a few tenths of a degree Celsius.

Probably this "drive" (5V from FG) was to low, but i cannot risk attaching the scope to higher voltages.
Blue is CH2 probe to top coil
purple is CH3 probe to bottom coil
red is math trace (CH2 - CH3) so voltage across the coil.

Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 12, 2019, 11:56:02 PM
Itsu:  Cannot understand why your wave is a sine wave.  I have some screen shots from a dvd with the kit which shows "spike waves at various frequencies - (but using the small coils only). Unless your scope is affecting the wave form.
You have to mess around with the coils to get a phase conjugate mirror as everything affects the overall circuit.  I used 7 small coils plus the big coil. You know when you are there because your gate driver voltage won't move.  You can also use a  Hv fast  bridge rectifier between earth ground and negative of the big coil to help power the gate driver (ie charge the batteries of the gate driver).  And you can use one of the satellite coils to power the frequency generator in the same fashion.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 13, 2019, 12:59:13 AM
a.king21,

Sine wave developes from the square wave with which the gate driver or the function 
generator feeds the LC circuit. This is because the LC circuit has got selectivity and allows 
oscillations only at the fundamental frequency of the square wave when they are matched
in frequency.  An LC circuit with  a decent Q factor can only oscillate the best at its fundamental 
frequency that can be calculated from the Thomson formula.   

What was the circuit in the dvd setup from which you took the scope shot? 
If it was from the kit then maybe the LC circuit was not at resonance. 
And across which two components were the scope probes connected?

Would you explain what exactly you mean on a "phase conjugate mirror"?
And you achieve such state by how?
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 13, 2019, 01:05:19 AM
I'm no authority on waveforms and my opinion if probably worth naff all but I would say Itsu has resonance where Mr King does not have enough pulses for resonance as the spikes are probably the c in the circuit charging  and discharging try adding more c or winding up f.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 13, 2019, 03:42:37 AM
a.king21,



Would you explain what exactly you mean on a "phase conjugate mirror"?
And you achieve such state by how?
Gyula

Images removed upon request from poster.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: SolarLab on June 13, 2019, 07:22:42 AM

F.Y.I.

Impedance matching and the Smith chart – The fundamentals. Tried and true, the Smith chart is still
the basic tool for determining transmission line impedances, reflection co-efficients, Standing Wave Ratios, etc...

https://www.ieee.li/pdf/essay/smith_chart_fundamentals.pdf (https://www.ieee.li/pdf/essay/smith_chart_fundamentals.pdf)

Complex Conjugate {mirror?} - example:
"It  is  well  known that  to  get  the maximum power transfer from a source to a load, the  source impedance
must equal the complex conjugate of load impedance, or: Rs+ jXs = RL– jXL.  A Smith Chart works well for
doing just that - flip the inductance (top part of the chart) or capacitance (bottom of the chart) to the "equal
but opposite impedance" on the chart!

RF engineering basic concepts: the Smith chart

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1417989/files/p95.pdf (https://cds.cern.ch/record/1417989/files/p95.pdf)

Your Vector Network Analyzer (VNA) likely has a "Smith Chart" built in [a decendant from the old "Slotted Line" days!]

========

With respect to Negative Resistance:

Negative Resistance, in general, is an old term used where, when a network (circuit) was at, or around, resonance
the capacitive side exhibited a positive-resistive effect (positive resistance - taking current away from the network);
near or at the center resonance peak, the network exhibited zero or infinite resistive effect [series or parallel resonance];
and on the inductive side exhibited a negative-resistive effect (negative resistance - providing current into the network).
Many ways of interpreting these network (circuit) effects but thats the essence of it. The higher the network "Q" (quality
factor - lack of circuit resistance) the more pronounced are the effects.

========

A bit more on Kron (may be a bit easier to read):

www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/Kron-1945/Kron-PR-1945/Kron-PR1945.htm
http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/index.html  (http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/index.html)

http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Ueberb1.htm (http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Ueberb1.htm)
Kron (along with Carter) for the most part were investigating this newly discovered Network Analyzer instrument for
use in analyzing lines with respect to the Schrödinger Equations.
http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/KronGabriel1.htm (http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/KronGabriel1.htm)
G. Kron and G.K. Carter, A.C. network analyzer study of the Schrödinger equation. Phys. Rev. 67, 44 - 49 (1945).
SMITH Chart and the Schrödinger Equation: [The Smith chart and quantum mechanics]
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.17262 (https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.17262)
Abstract
The Schrödinger equation and the equation describing the behavior of voltage on a transmission line are both linear
second‐order equations, which may be solved by convenient matrix methods. By drawing analogies between these
two problems, it is shown that a method used for antenna impedance matching based on the Smith chart corresponds
in quantum mechanics to a simple conformal transformation of the logarithmic derivative of the wave function. One
thereby can arrive at an elementary derivation of the Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin quantization condition.
FIN

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 13, 2019, 10:57:09 AM
Itsu:  Cannot understand why your wave is a sine wave.  I have some screen shots from a dvd with the kit which shows "spike waves at various frequencies - (but using the small coils only). Unless your scope is affecting the wave form.
You have to mess around with the coils to get a phase conjugate mirror as everything affects the overall circuit.  I used 7 small coils plus the big coil. You know when you are there because your gate driver voltage won't move.  You can also use a  Hv fast  bridge rectifier between earth ground and negative of the big coil to help power the gate driver (ie charge the batteries of the gate driver).  And you can use one of the satellite coils to power the frequency generator in the same fashion.
A.king,

i would love to replicate your spiky signal, but i have the impression that you are taking giant steps while
i am taking baby steps.

Your shown scopeshots must be from a different setup, and those tiny (mV / few volts??) signals won't be powereing
much i guess.

Anyway, not sure how to continue now as we seem to be "out of sync".


By the way, the term "Phase conjugate mirror" or "Phase conjugate resonator" was found by me years ago in
Paul LaViolette his book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion" (pdf here:  https://tinyurl.com/yykwhrdr )

Not sure we are talking about the same thing.

Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 13, 2019, 05:12:20 PM
Hi a.king21,

Thanks for the copied pages from RF's book  as an answer to my 'phase conjugate mirror' question. 
Probably these materials were brought into the 'FE world' first by Tom Bearden, then John Bedini also
referred to Kron's papers in his early web pages http://emediapress.com/johnbedini/icehouse.net/john1/ 
and now Itsu mentioned the book by Paul LaViolette too. This kinda precedence is ok though, not my point.   
   
The problem is that the circuits (that are equivalent to a certain Schrödinger differential equation) shown from
Figure 1 to Figure 7 in friedKRON.png from Rick's book page have nothing to do with Rick's kit 
(transmitter-receiver circuit) you have been mentioning here and Itsu replicated.   

Those circuits in Figures 1 to 7 were LC networks, driven by a generator from one side and / or had a generator
inserted into the middle part of the network as shown in Figure 4/b, here is the original Kron article:
http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/Kron-1945/Kron-PR-1945/Kron-PR-1945.htm 

and see another full Kron paper here: 
http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/Kron-1945/Kron-JAP-1945/Kron-JAP-1945.htm 

So my opinion is apples are compared to oranges. But please do not be discouraged by me: show your setup
with input and output power measurements so that its uniqueness (i.e.  COP > 1)  be revealed. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 13, 2019, 08:23:56 PM
is this it ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DmAyYhnRgc
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 13, 2019, 09:39:42 PM

I got my gaussmeter, which is an el cheapo electromagnetic radiation tester (GM3120) and which i know is being
used in combination with this Big coil testing.

It can measure Electric fields in V/m and Magnetic fields in uT.

An overload led (flashing) and beeper warns when radiation levels are unsafe (very often!).

Anyway, here a short introduction, see video.

I will do some tests the next days including the ones mentione by A.King21 earlier.

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


Itsu   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 13, 2019, 10:32:57 PM
Itsu:  One further point.  When the phase conjugate mirror occured the coils went stone cold and the earth wire went stone cold. Also the big coil went stone cold.


Try this.  Measure the gauss on your big coil at start up.
Tune the big coil in and out of resonance. What does the gauss meter show?


Then attach a ground wire to the negative of your big coil at resonance . what do you see?
Then attach the ground wire to the positive of your big coil - what do you see?
Turn on a plasma ball and compare the gauss measurement.  What do you see?
Turn on a HV module and measure the gauss.  What do you see?


Some quick test as mentioned above, still using the battery operated FG directly to the big coil LC, see circuit above.
No probes attached other then a loose probe laying ontop of the coil to indicate resonance.

# Using the gaussmeter without ground on the big coil, in and out of resonance.
# Then with a ground to the top of the coil, in and out of resonance.
# Finally with a ground lead to the bottom of the coil, again in and out of resonance.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiN6Bd9rJAk

# adding a plasma globe into the mix which, not surprisingly, adds to the emitted RF.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9iDNMmteKM

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 14, 2019, 12:56:39 AM
Greetings everyone  :)
As I decided to post some historical information on this forum today I found the response ignoring the important subject and pointing over to this discussion about my work and Resonance kit. So I thought I would post a picture of the biggest expansion of the kit done so far. Last week I had three meetings that went very well and the following pictures I took of about 75 coils being powered by one big transmitter. I didn't have time to properly set this all up so the coils are not in ideal positions. This shows what you can do with no organization. I presently have about 160 coils so I may take the time to set them all up in one big display in an upcoming video. I was able to have a good display in California last year where I was doing the phase lock in which allowed me to add many ferrite coil loads directly to the transmitter while the input went down. I did the same sort of thing at the Midwest Expo down in Indiana this year where the meter continued to go down to I believe 0.004A at 4V while we loaded down the transmitter. I never got to fully set up as everyone crowded around the whole time.

Of course this is only showing the basic form of transmission. The proper way is not like this but with a secondary within or outside around the primary like Don Smith. But this demonstrates what Don showed and was aiming for in his first model with 4 secondaries. Only this is easier and safer to do. I know y'll want overunity here but the kit was meant to teach the basics of resonance at a safe level. The red LED gives you an opportunity to notice very subtle changes. You need to learn those things first before you hurt yourself at higher power levels. I decided half way through making the kit to not only make it an overunity focus, but to also unfold the several themes related to resonance. It certainly is not a perfect kit free of mistakes, but everyone has been satisfied as far as I know. I'm still learning from it myself, and will probably continue for years even though I have all the free energy I want. We can thank Don Smith for pointing to the original kit which I have significantly improved upon. The original just came with 7 pages about Faraday's laws and showed basic transmission and crystal radio. However it was interesting to find an apparent typo when they refer to the second receiver coil as coilS with an s on the end. Maybe a hint that you could add more coils. So the truth is that I could add as many coils as I could make from here to California that would be like relay coils WITH LOADS. So these pictures give you a small taste of that.

The setup was the exact #10 stranded wire that Don Smith often used (many of which I have replicated). This was made on a 5 gallon bucket to give you the diameter. The 9 coils around it (there was a tenth that we were to put on a higher level but held it on top with it's bright bulb load not affecting the other loads) were for customers and made up of #18 wire on a 6" pvc cut tube having the same inductance and capacitance as the smaller coils (I believe 152uh with 100pf quality caps). 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.

Ideally you would properly space all these coils so that they all become both transmitters and receivers in a sympathetic relationship with each other in a way like the London bridge that was falling down (haha, no, the London millennial bridge). Once this is locked into place then we do in fact have what Kron talks about in a different context, and where you can remove the input as it is self-sustaining. And more than that, you can add loads to the transmitter and even reverse the input. This usually requires several coils around the transmitter because the output of the transmitter drops off at the square of the distance so enough has to come back into the transmitter to accomplish that (considering that you have transmission radiating almost in all directions and usually we are only placing coil just horizontally around it).

The loads off the 10 bigger coils (one not shown) were bright 3W LED bulbs, and another one was powered below off a regular coil which isn't seen in the picture. So I had at least 11 of these big LEDs and almost 70 small LEDs powered. I also added ferrite coils with these bigger bulbs that brought the input power down without lowering the loads. So for 80ma at 12V that was an okay demonstration. It's the 1 watt challenge.

Anyway, I'll post another video of all the coils running when I get caught up with other pressing matters.
Rick

Some quick test as mentioned above, still using the battery operated FG directly to the big coil LC, see circuit above.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 14, 2019, 03:16:40 AM
Impressive, you certainly invested lots of time in that construct, and had result.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 14, 2019, 06:22:31 AM
You'll have to read what I wrote. The point was that I didn't spend any time setting it up. I just put the coils out without proper spacing, etc. However, some of the students at my meeting spent several hours connecting the little capacitors and LEDs to each coil as well as winding 10 of the mid-size coils. Anyway, if I set it up right then I can get the input down to zero and can actually load the primary with more loads. Of course I can also put coils above and below. The 18 students at the meeting could see that I had one coil underneath, and I had a board where I could have added more on top. But we already ran out of coils with capacitors on them.

Impressive, you certainly invested lots of time in that construct, and had result.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 14, 2019, 02:13:00 PM
Hi Rick,

Thanks for coming in this thread too. 

I would like you to consider member Itsu's recent measurement results and comments on the input power
to the transmitter circuit and the output power the LED bulbs got from the receiver units. 

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534383/#msg534383 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534383/#msg534383)
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534479/#msg534479 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534479/#msg534479)
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534479/#msg534479 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534479/#msg534479)

The point is: even though you can use quasi hundreds of receiver units loaded with red or white LEDs 
you do not know what the actual power levels are that the LED bulbs really consume.  Your hinting at
"bright 3W LED bulbs" is not enough at all,  even for estimating roughly the actual power levels involved.

This is what you wrote in this respect:   
   "The loads off the 10 bigger coils (one not shown) were bright 3W LED bulbs, and another one was powered 
below off a regular coil which isn't seen in the picture. So I had at least 11 of these big LEDs and almost 70 small 
LEDs powered. I also added ferrite coils with these bigger bulbs that brought the input power down without 
lowering the loads. So for 80ma at 12V that was an okay demonstration.  It's the 1 watt challenge."     

You also wrote: " 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." 

Yes I agree, bigger coils wound with thick wire and with favorable OD/length ratio can have higher Q .
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.
"Don't let people fool you about that."

You also wrote:

"Anyway, I'll post another video of all the coils running when I get caught up with other pressing matters."

Please, would you consider to measure only the 9 (or 10) big receiver coils output when they drive the bright
white LED bulbs at a measured input power to the gate driver?    I do not know your actual receiver circuits,  whether you use diode bridges to rectify the AC voltage and whether you drive the LEDs with DC.
This latter case would help much to check LED DC currents easily and the DC voltage levels across them.

I know these measurements are time consuming.   Also, the use of diode bridges would cause inherent power
loss in the receiver units but this loss can be estimated if you already know the DC current via the LED bulbs.   

Thanks,
Gyula
(Edited for a better text format)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 14, 2019, 05:29:39 PM

Gyula,

i guess the last of your 3 links above should be another one like this one perhaps?:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534508/#msg534508


Anyway,  indeed impressive pictures from rickfriedrich, impressive concerning the amount of coils used that is.
Not so for the presented (measurement, circuit) data, which is almost non existing, but this probably was not
in scope for this post.

Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 14, 2019, 05:30:12 PM
The power output obtained
 is in direct proportion to the amount of hidden cables.
 :) :) :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 14, 2019, 05:38:05 PM

Hi Itsu,

Yes, okay,  the link you included also contains very important information you kindly provided.



Dear seaad,

Please let's keep this discussion polite and civil...   

Thanks,

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: e2matrix on June 14, 2019, 06:30:55 PM
I got my gaussmeter, which is an el cheapo electromagnetic radiation tester (GM3120) and which i know is being
used in combination with this Big coil testing.

It can measure Electric fields in V/m and Magnetic fields in uT.

An overload led (flashing) and beeper warns when radiation levels are unsafe (very often!).

Anyway, here a short introduction, see video.

I will do some tests the next days including the ones mentione by A.King21 earlier.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgjEDVbfVJQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgjEDVbfVJQ)


Itsu
itsu,  I bought that exact same gauss meter a while back.   I don't know if it was a bad one but it was nearly worthless and could barely detect anything compared to two other meters I have.  One is an older analog gauss and emf meter and one a newer one (digital) that was about $15 which does okay (but is still less sensitive than my old analog).   Try opening up that Kmoon and see if what they are using for a detector looks like it would be useful for anything but the closest or strongest fields.   It appears to be nothing but a piece of PCB with copper on both sides with both sides soldered together (electrically connected).  There is also a resistor mounted up high off the circuit board behind that piece about 5/16" from the copper.    ???
[size=78%]  [/size]
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 14, 2019, 07:30:00 PM

e2matrix,

i agree with you,  and i knew upfront that, at most, i would be "a toy" as i saw this below review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BXoqb9LRZE

Not sure about the skills of that guy doing the teardown, as he was unable to "see" how the 9V battery
needed to be placed (only one way possible).

But yes, the electrical field detector seems to be a dual sided PCB and the magnetic field detector an
inductor (not a resistor) mounted up high off and next to that PCB.

Anyway, it indicates some differences in field strengths, but up till now did not reveal any extra energy
which otherwise would be missed using the scope.....


Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 14, 2019, 07:39:19 PM
This is a very important point he makes which reveals how these forums are usually worse than useless. What is the bases for any of you making conclusions from pictures, videos, or words presented by other people? There is no way to demonstrate that anyone else is really doing what they claim they are. Even video of people saying something cannot be trusted that the person is really the person you think it is as inexpensive 20 year old tech exists that mask someone else. So with free energy claims you will never be able to trust a video, picture or testimony. We live in a day of fantasy and illusions and people in these circles are mostly ignorant about how to estimate these things, mistaken, or out right deceiving themselves or others. This is why in my meetings I spent much of the time focusing on the psychological problems, starting with personal bias or prejudgment. We tend to think of the skeptic like G having the only problem in this way (being over-disbelieving), but what about those actually believing in free energy over-believing their own results or those of others? These forums are almost completely full of both kinds of people. So in the end they are worse than a waste of time as you run around listening to people over and under believing. So I don't play those games. I've been at this for 15 years to know all the mistakes and tricks people play. I have exposed skeptics, trolls, and mistakes.
Anyway, there is almost a justified reason to make this wires statement when indeed many people use hidden wires. I have spent a lot of time 10 years ago showing how people fake their results because I hate how people pray upon others' faith, money and time.

Guess what? There were in fact wires under the table. You can see a computer hooked up next to it and it was plugged into the AC, and so was the frequency generator and power supply. I also had a ground wire from a one prong socket that wasn't even used, but it was off to the side. Anyway, the setup was not for you people but 18 other people attending my meeting, and who actually set this up with me. They connected all the caps and LEDs, and also set up the shelving, etc. The nature of the circumstances showed them there was nothing hidden or being done. And it really didn't matter because they all had the kit for the last year and had experience with the same things. This wasn't done to prove OU to them, and it was the least sensational thing shown over the 22+ hours of the meeting. It was just an opportunity to hook up as many coils as I had and play around with them to learn more about this system when many coils are used. So don't fool yourself into thinking that this picture was for this forum as some kind of proof claim. I would not insult your intelligence as so many people do. All I ever do over the internet with videos is try and assist my customers so that they can do the same with the same parts. Strangers have no reason to believe others who can have many motives for their claims. And people don't have to be liars, they can be, and often are, mistaken. I work with all levels of people, from the newbie who knows nothing, to the highest up technician of the top companies, and believe me they all make mistakes in evaluating technology.
So it is true that there is no way for anyone to trust any claim from anyone on this forum. So what is the point of this forum? What use is it? I will continue this next post...

The power output obtained
 is in direct proportion to the amount of hidden cables.
 :) :) :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 14, 2019, 10:26:52 PM
Hi Itsu, 

If you think it would be worth building a Gaussmeter, then you surely can: 

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magmeter.htm 

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=gaussmeter 

https://web.archive.org/web/20070815103923/https://www.modelbouwforum.nl/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7834   

and here is an integrated magnetic sensor IC (but probably there are some from other manufacturers): 

http://www.ti.com/product/DRV425 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 14, 2019, 11:57:35 PM
I will continue from my last posting about the limitations of forums that cannot prove anything. I share this for people who already have the kit, as everyone else will not be able to evaluate anything I say. The Resonance Induction Coupler Kit is outlined in a progressive way so that you can learn the relationships at a low power safe level. You can see how subtle changes make big differences. Those who have the book are taught several essential themes that are not the focus of mainstream teaching so everyone else will not really get these things because they are locked in a closed system by definition. Difference between those who succeed in this research and those who don't because of their limited restrictions are for example in that when working with or evaluating nonlinear processes the former will work on the reactive side while the later will focus on the resistive side. For example I expose this in the kit book where the 80+ page Negative Resistance declassified paper shows the author constantly limiting himself to the resistive nonlinear processes while annoyingly repeating the claim that there can be no excess of energy. One has to ask themselves why they classified the paper at all then. If he had properly considered the reactive rather than the resistive he would have experienced what Teslean processes and experienced true negative resistance rather than negative differential resistance. So G, if you limit yourself as he did then you will have the same experience and only get a greater efficiency and no OU.

I was made aware of his attempts by someone else on this thread and I considered his posts a few weeks ago. I found many mistakes so I directed them to be careful. I have been at this for 15 years with thousands of people all around the world and what I have found is most people make little mistakes which you usually cannot find until you visit them in person. That is why I do my meetings. People bring in their setups and I help them find their mistakes. I find it almost fruitless to try and evaluate other people's setups over the internet. You cannot assume anything. But if you at least have the same parts (thus the purpose of a kit with standard parts) then you may have some hope. Anyway, Itsu's parts and setups is not the standard which I can evaluate fairly as he doesn't have the kit parts, nor the instructions and essential teachings. The point of the kit is not to run after OU at the beginning, but first learn the lessons to prepare you for that. You first learn about resonance, and then the idea of many bodies in contrast to single body circuits. Also impedance in relation to fast rates of change. Without proper teaching you are just limiting yourself to the circle game and will never get anywhere. So you see this is not a fact problem but a psychological problem. What you go into this with is what you will come out with. If one cannot consider a multibody system, and discards all but the single path, then they lock themselves out of the complete story from the start.

So I don't know or care what someone experienced from their FG to their transmitter. It is meaningless to all of us as we don't really know what they do. Again, if they have the same parts and instructions then you may have some hope of progress on these forums.

Now I do agree with postings about showing how people can be mistaken in their evaluation of LEDs. Do they have and know how to use light meters? I do. I also watch how many people are mistaken in that.

The next statement from you is rather exaggerated however and shows your bent towards disbelief. Remember the context is my two pictures where there are both small and big LEDs. To say hundreds of these LEDs cannot reveal to those present that something significant is going on reveals incredulousness. This is far to dismissive. Yes, it would be a realistic statement if we were talking about tiny microwatt LEDs that give out a little light. But this is not the case. And you are missing the point that we can keep adding more and more and more. Also that as I loaded the transmitter the input went down without diminishing the LEDs. When tuned this can go down to zero amps (or below 0.000A) or negative. So if you have almost no input, or even negative input, then hundreds of LEDs do mean more than you would grant. I think I had about 15 of the 3W lamp LEDs. So if they were only half a watt each this would be convincing enough. When I added all the coils the input was 60ma@12V, which was almost the power level of powering one of those bulbs at the same brightness. I am not at all here attempting to prove anything along these lines to people who were not there. But my point is that you are obviously bent towards disbelief while others are manifestly wrongly bent towards unreasonable over-belief. Yes proper measurements need to be made, but if you walk with my context here, I showed people how you can just add more and more coils. At some point when I fill an entire state or make a trail from Michigan to California then people will rightly conclude that something unusual must be happening. But the incredulous will still find a way to dismiss the obvious. lol Anyway, I was running this at 0.75 to 1W input in this untuned setup. It wasn't given for OU demonstration but for showing the relationships. But yes it demonstrated it to everyone. However, it is impossible to demonstrate that to people not there. You cannot show the lighting through cameras. You cannot be certain there is no fakery. So these forum discussions are very limited and are more about the methods and possibilities than the actual facts.

The next question you ask is about the gain. The first thing you are going to have to come to grips with is that there is more than just AC and DC. There is also oscillatory and impulse energy which are not AC and DC but have different characteristics. If you cannot see that they you will always misjudge these processes. Even though they have similarities they are different, especially in specific context. So you can arbitrarily pre-define your boundaries and context so that you exclude the nonlinear reactive phenomena and resulting effects upon the local environment and 'other' loads. This is what everyone does. You have to avoid over-simplification and over-complication.

We will look at both of these in this kit. In regards to the impulse energy being not pulse dc, when we consider that DC is really only what we measure AFTER turn on and BEFORE turn off, and that impulse is really only the turn on and not the oscillations following, then we can realize they are fundamentally different. Impulse has its own laws that are non-conservative and outside Kirchhoff's rule that is based upon constant current single body circuits. In impulse processes we find that the sharper the squarewave, or the faster the rate of change, the higher the gain we get. So for example, when I use the standard frequency generator the circulating voltage in the series tank circuit is around 250V with an input of 9V at 25ma. But when I add the gate driver with the same input I can see that change to 1300ma because the rate of change has improved. 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. Carlos Benitez patented some of these processes 100 years ago and he showed (what you can see with the Ed Gray and some of the Don Smith systems) that each free oscillation can essentially step-charge the batteries or capacitor even millions of times between each make and break of the magnetically quenched spark gap. So this oscillation energy is real gain and not what you think of with regular AC. This is where resonance is a gain, when you actually use it. Otherwise it is only a potential gain. You pay to ring the bell once, and all the free oscillations inbetween work for you freely. You may not have experienced that electrically as some of us have, but if you ring a bell or play the piano you can get the idea of the gain in resonance. I will do a good analogy in the next video or show the meeting video where I present that analogy. In short, if you remove the damper pedal on the keys and strike the middle C you will have many other keys and sound board actually amplify the energy you put in. And if you have an acoustically sound room with many other pianos in it then they will vibrate in addition in sympathetic resonance. Everyone in music knows this. Actually in all other areas of life we know resonance is a gain except with college level physics and below. However, when you get into the real world and specialize in non-linear reactive processes you also understand the same things as the pianist.
These words are fast attempt to outline the basic ideas enlarged in the book and elsewhere. I think Eric Dollard does a good job covering some of these points. But I point you to T. W. BARRETT publications dealing with Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory.
Now in our case we are not ringing the bell to create the self-oscillation, but are ringing the bell at the oscillating frequency. So it is a forced resonance that we are paying for much more than we need to. Nevertheless that gain is still there as we get the continuous higher voltage and equal amperage because of this resonance gain. You can see this in various ways if you do not destroy the effect with your load and detune it. And that's where people fail. You really don't want to load the primary until you are in a phase lock loop mirror type of situation with the secondaries. When you 'lock in' then it is interesting to see how you can load down the transmitter and even reduce or remove the input power. (Now it is easy to replace the frequency generator with a receiver coil, but it is a little more work to replace the gate driver power source. You really don't need to do that directly when you can lock in and bring the power down to zero or negative.)
Now all this may seem fanciful to you G. But it is not hard to experience and this is what Tesla did daily, and so many of us since his day. And it is my hobby to show how these processes are being used over the last 100 years in existing technology we all have had. Thousands of patents show what I have said above, it is just that they do not overtly say you can do this for producing electricity (anything else is allowed). However, Cook and Benitez and a few others actually got patents through 100+ years ago saying this.

As for Power, this is a point of misunderstanding. Power is the measurement of wasted energy. While we can show power measurement it is not a exclusive indicator of all work that can be done. For example, we can push a magnet because of an impulsed inductor when normally we do not. Now the rotor that is spun by it's magnet, and the resulting loads it can power, is another body that people do not wish to include in their calculations. For example, if Walter Lewin had added a battery as a negative resistor load as we have done for years with our energizers, rather than merely show the reversed voltmeter, then he would have gotten himself in real trouble by showing more effectually this other body or many body idea that shows Kirchhoff's rule is limited and does not apply there. Again, you measure wattage in a closed looped constant current circuit. But do you consider the turning on and off of the circuit in your math? No, as I said, you measure the DC after you turn on, and before you turn off. So if there is an inductor, and you really add up everything you have a gain as Lewin demonstrated. There is a gain when you open the loop. The gain is greater or less according to the rate of change or abruptness of the impulse. But all the meters are only considering what is in the loop and people cannot understand floating grounds or many-body networks. My selfish circuit or loving paths teaching tries to explain this. For example, you have your flyback diode across the inductor, and this energy is ignored or discarded. It is only real to those of us who actually use it or those of use who have to deal with its damaging effects. Otherwise it is family secret embarrassment that is just not mentioned. The big lie you are lead to believe doesn't exist until you get in the real world and put away your diapers. So there is math and it leads you back to Stienmetz and Tesla. Whenever the big problems appear then people have to admit these things... Anyway, power is the measurement of wasted energy in a closed loop. But we can, as I demonstrated several different ways, run loads without having the source charge destroy or deplete itself. We do not need to close the loop. There are many patents showing that. So if you have a real load running those of you stuck on power measurement will not believe it just like those denying human flight even though airplanes are flying over your heads. In the Fogal paper Bearden rightly wrote: "We produce power (rate of energy dissipation) electrical engineers rather than energy transport engineers." Naturally, thus trained, their bias prevents them from even considering anything other than a loss system. Any professed investigation into matters in this forum are absolutely hypocritical because they will refuse to admit such to themselves. Again, they limit the real world to an arbitrary closedminded mathematics that cannot justify itself and is contrary to the real world, and even to existing products. So I joke with the demonstration of a clamp amp meter over my finger that shows no amps when I move it to illustrate the fact that I can have action without power measurement. In the same way apart from never energy I can use potentials without shorting out the potential. I can use a coil and/or a capacitor in a tank circuit to do work. The tank cap can be a water cell that still oscillates without dampning, and the inductor can be a transmitter as well as a motor as well as a heater (I believe we have 7 different things we can do at the same time!!). Further, the various radiations can continue past and through the receiver coils to influence other receivers while each receiver doesn't actually reflect such radiation (like metal objects in radar) but creates its own transmission and merely indirectly reflects back and all around itself. Again, all the mainstream teaching is merely convenient college level teaching that is nice and tidy but does not reflect the extent of the real world or the actual practice in the commercial world.
Anyway, you can measure power on the LED circuits, and other loads. But if you limit your observation to meters then you may just as well get lost in your TV fantasies in digital land. In the end I run my loads for years whatever the meters say. I ran that 26' boat for 3 years when you will tell me it is not possible.
So yes, "power" gain would be confusing as power is wasted energy, so it is loss by definition. But that doesn't mean we can create self-running processes that produce as much power as we need. I don't want to fool around with words.

As for measuring bulbs, at the end of the day what matters is what a lightmeter shows or what people need in the real world more importantly. Agree? Do you think it really matters what a meter shows when you have a self-running system? Now if a meter can help you see that the actual light produced is less than what it is without the unique process in question, then by all means. But you have to realize that any meter will become part of the circuit, including the oscope. And in the Lewin debate it was concluded by all that the probe loop was not actually measuring of the actual energy in the circuit but merely trying to be representative. It is an indication not an actual measurement. These are all very important distinctions in these debates. Anyway, if there is a means to run my bulbs or split H2O or shuttle around magnetic and dielectric flux while meters don't show anything, then where does that leave us. We part ways. You become the pilot who only looks at his gauges and crashes into the tower or ground and I look out the window and land the plane. The real world is much more comprehensive than the over-simplistic mainstream college level popular onion practice. But there is no problem looking at the voltage across the bulb or the amperage. But in another place on this forum I am getting into "the black box" third stage process where we were indeed running bulbs with zero ac and zero DC across them. Now if I measure it and show this as I showed at my meetings, why would you believe or disbelieve such testimony or video or pictures without being physically there to verify that? I could write anything. I could fake anything. So why would you believe it one way or another? It really comes down to skeptics being on the forums to disprove mistakes people make while there is no ability to prove anything (of course many pretend to be skeptics and are really just the competition seeking to get things out of others by pushing them along).
If I had all the meters that had the right frequency capabilities (as regular voltmeters can't deal with the 1.25MHz frequency) and showed x amount of watts at the end of the day if you do not want to believe it you will not. And there will be no reason for you to honestly believe it when it is communicated over the internet. The meters will never be good enough, only the $100,000 ones would be accepted. I've watched people dance around for years in that loop when in the end what can you really believe from a photo, video or testimony, or even a meter? I show you a voltmeter that says zero and you say it isn't work right. I show you a scope and it isn't good enough. Then I say, nothing is good enough because you are not present anyway. This is why I gave up on the forums and just did kits in the real world, and meetings with real people. These people can use the tech for years powering their lights, running their homes, boats, cars, etc. They travel around the world with no fear while others assume the earth is flat and they will fall off the edge if they go too far out. ;)
Anyway, would 0.5W on the bulbs be acceptable to you on those bigger bulbs? I know that may be problematic considering the input was in the picture 1W and with more bulbs and coils 0.75W. Would 0.000A on the input be acceptable to you? At that point would it matter that I had 1,000,000 little LEDs powered up, or several thousand 3W bulbs at 0.5W each?
Now the bulbs have their own circuitry which has improved over the years. While they do bottleneck with the high frequency so that they are limited converters, they still do respond a little. We really would need to do a proper frequency reduction to properly run loads. I may add that in the future as has been requested. So unless you measure after the internal bridge you will not see the DC side of things.
Now all this does not include the gains with ground connections. I demonstrated at the meeting that when I connected up a ground connection the bulbs got significantly brighter (like 2x). That is not always the case, and it will depend at times on which side of the coil (high or low side) you connect to. Of course that is a big point in the book. I did not have time to connect all the individual coils to the same or independent grounds. And I also could have had variable capacitors to tune a little better to the resonant peak. The bigger coils actually were a little out of tune from the others, and of course that will depend on the loads you use in this basic setup. Unfortunately we needed to add a little more or less inductance to give a better result, but all them were made the same without checking. It turned out good enough.
So if you have 7W of measured light and 75 coils with smaller LEDs for 0.75W of input on only one level, and without being tuned or grounded, then I think people were satisfied. I don't expect any of you to accept any of that.

Hi Rick,

Thanks for coming in this thread too. 

I would like you to consider member Itsu's recent measurement results and comments on the input power
to the transmitter circuit and the output power the LED bulbs got from the receiver units. 

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534383/#msg534383 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534383/#msg534383)
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534479/#msg534479 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534479/#msg534479)
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534479/#msg534479 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534479/#msg534479)

The point is: even though you can use quasi hundreds of receiver units loaded with red or white LEDs 
you do not know what the actual power levels are that the LED bulbs really consume.  Your hinting at
"bright 3W LED bulbs" is not enough at all,  even for estimating roughly the actual power levels involved.

This is what you wrote in this respect:   
   "The loads off the 10 bigger coils (one not shown) were bright 3W LED bulbs, and another one was powered 
below off a regular coil which isn't seen in the picture. So I had at least 11 of these big LEDs and almost 70 small 
LEDs powered. I also added ferrite coils with these bigger bulbs that brought the input power down without 
lowering the loads. So for 80ma at 12V that was an okay demonstration.  It's the 1 watt challenge."     

You also wrote: " 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." 

Yes I agree, bigger coils wound with thick wire and with favorable OD/length ratio can have higher Q .
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.
"Don't let people fool you about that."

You also wrote:

"Anyway, I'll post another video of all the coils running when I get caught up with other pressing matters."

Please, would you consider to measure only the 9 (or 10) big receiver coils output when they drive the bright
white LED bulbs at a measured input power to the gate driver?    I do not know your actual receiver circuits,  whether you use diode bridges to rectify the AC voltage and whether you drive the LEDs with DC.
This latter case would help much to check LED DC currents easily and the DC voltage levels across them.

I know these measurements are time consuming.   Also, the use of diode bridges would cause inherent power
loss in the receiver units but this loss can be estimated if you already know the DC current via the LED bulbs.   

Thanks,
Gyula
(Edited for a better text format)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on June 15, 2019, 01:17:00 AM
Mr. Friedrich, well written as response !

Not to learn from the books, because to " new": 
https://m.phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html
The velocity amplification in Nano-tubes

............
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: endlessoceans on June 15, 2019, 01:21:16 AM

 The point of the kit is not to run after OU at the beginning, but first learn the lessons to prepare you for that. You first learn about resonance, and then the idea of many bodies in contrast to single body circuits. Also impedance in relation to fast rates of change. Without proper teaching you are just limiting yourself to the circle game and will never get anywhere.


Hi Rick

Extraordinary claims require evidence.  The fact is you and the likes of Bedini certainly made outlandish claims for  many decades and when folk asked for the smallest of evidence a self contained system (SO SIMPLE) that let's say has one battery running it and then constantly loops other batteries until you can charge 2 batteries for the price of one (example.....but showing clear excess of energy), nether of you ever did so.  FORGET all measurements and gauss meters and fancy wave forms.  They mean nothing just like in real life where long winded answers without showing the money means snake oil.

Nobody is asking you to give up your supposed secret but you have never even demonstrated with a black box OU.  YOU SELL KITS.  YOU WANT TO KEEP SELLING KITS.  In order to do that you must never give anyone OU.  You yourself have stated above that providing people with OU is not the purpose of the kit.  JB also did the same thing and sold endless chargers at stupid prices.

Before you reply and say I do not understand what you talk about, forget about it.  I have systems of my own design that are open and can do exactly what you state and more.  Keep loading it and the input keeps dropping and not silly fluff loads of LEDs either.

Your posts are just as long winded as your youtube videos but sadly this does not equate to substance.  So keep talking and keep selling but have the honesty to admit that is what your puprose is.  In another 10 years only the foolish will keep buying from you.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 15, 2019, 01:36:21 AM
Thanks. And yes I am aware of that and have been sharing that for years. This is like negative differential resistance with negative resistance devices at their optimum curves. There are many things like this that reveal everything in life is not so tidy and simplistic. It brings to mind for some reason step charging capacitors. The efficiency changes with the frequency. So once you get out of the over-simplistic death-loop mold then you realize there is so much 'potential'.
In regards to LEDs being more efficient at lower levels. A few years back I helped a customer of mine who owned a company that swapped out the other bulbs for LEDs for gas stations and hotels. I examined his products with light meters and shared with him this very fact. He had big heat sinks and fans and I found that he was wasting about 40% of the energy in heat and fan power (and never mind the added expense) compared if he ran it below 75%. I know above 100W modules were more expensive, so if he just had two 100W modules at lower power levels rather than the 150W he would be much better off. But yes, at very low levels they do produce a lot more light than the 'rules' allow for. Give them an efficiency ticket would you!

Mr. Friedrich, well written as response !

Not to learn from the books, because to " new": 
https://m.phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html
The velocity amplification in Nano-tubes

............
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 15, 2019, 02:07:52 AM
Anyone else see what happened with this guy's response???
He completely misquotes what I said in the short paragraph.
Endlessoceans of slander, you obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote. I didn't say the kit didn't show OU, but that primary purpose of the kit was to learn resonance and related ideas in a safe way so that you could then understand how to achieve OU. So many people think they understand resonance but they don't. How then can they succeed?
As for evidence, I have long demonstrated what I have claimed. Obviously my point here is that you can't prove anything over the internet. Did you come to any of my many meetings over the last 10 years? I gave boat rides showing the basic circuit powering a 26' boat. I showed a riding lawnmower popping wheelies while charging batteries. I showed fans and motors doing the same thing. Over the last 5 years in three countries I showed exactly what you demand below, motors running themselves without discharging over hours and sometimes 2 whole days. That was in Hamburg Germany, Texas, and Indiana. Many witnesses. Where were you? What gives you the right to say such things when I actually did what you demand.
Now I can understand your frustration with Bedini as I agree that he did play games with people and held back many things. But while he did have serious personal problems and wronged many people (me more than anyone), he did show some important things here and there. In another place on this forum I made mention of DVD7 from Energy from the Vacuum. There he revealed the most important thing he ever talked about, and if he had just done that one dvd then everything else was not needed. He actually explained how to do what we had in the black box. Did you or anyone else pay attention to that? I don't blame people for not taking him seriously. He was a copycat and I don't know if he invented anything. But he did pass on some good things. No he didn't create the renaissance Chargers, and when he made his own chargers they were junk. I couldn't be involved with battery killers so I got away and made the originals as I still do. Yes he wanted to up the prices and I could not stand for that. Of course I am the bad guy for wanting to help the people. Anyway, John did show his model windowmotor running with the bipolar circuit for 22 minutes off of one Amplifier capacitor while it was putting out decent torque. That is my video still circulating around. But John didn't use the technology as I have over the years. That really turns off a lot of angry people like you. I was part of the electric vehicle club and the president Gordy O would always come around and try to get John to make and electric something. He had 3 bikes and several hotrods but never did anything electric or free energy. All the models just collected dust.
Anyway, I know you are lumping him in with me but I have spent some years now bringing the truth out in these matters if you bother to see. I have done what I could to help people thousands of people all over the world. I do my meetings and sell kits and chargers because people ask for them. So it is none of your business to say all this against me. You show that you don't even care to read what I said. Your response is pure blind emotion. There is no goodwill or beneficial thing in what you write here. I don't have secrets in this but share all the processes for those who have ears to hear. Too bad you are so agree because you could have realized what I shared already. As for the Resonance kits, I actually don't make any money on them. It is not worth my time but I do it because it makes a big difference. You have not justified any of your words here. I wrote a lot because I am thorough and am trying to help everyone. If you don't like me no one requires you to read it. Obviously you didn't or you wouldn't even say half of it. Well, if you are making these claims then prove them yourself Mr. Accuser!
That people tolerate these kinds of attacks is the reason why these forums never go anywhere. Some of these people are deliberate disrupters and others are just full of blind rage.


Hi Rick

Extraordinary claims require evidence.  The fact is you and the likes of Bedini certainly made outlandish claims for  many decades and when folk asked for the smallest of evidence a self contained system (SO SIMPLE) that let's say has one battery running it and then constantly loops other batteries until you can charge 2 batteries for the price of one (example.....but showing clear excess of energy), nether of you ever did so.  FORGET all measurements and gauss meters and fancy wave forms.  They mean nothing just like in real life where long winded answers without showing the money means snake oil.

Nobody is asking you to give up your supposed secret but you have never even demonstrated with a black box OU.  YOU SELL KITS.  YOU WANT TO KEEP SELLING KITS.  In order to do that you must never give anyone OU.  You yourself have stated above that providing people with OU is not the purpose of the kit.  JB also did the same thing and sold endless chargers at stupid prices.

Before you reply and say I do not understand what you talk about, forget about it.  I have systems of my own design that are open and can do exactly what you state and more.  Keep loading it and the input keeps dropping and not silly fluff loads of LEDs either.

Your posts are just as long winded as your youtube videos but sadly this does not equate to substance.  So keep talking and keep selling but have the honesty to admit that is what your puprose is.  In another 10 years only the foolish will keep buying from you.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 15, 2019, 10:36:40 AM
Hi Itsu, 

If you think it would be worth building a Gaussmeter, then you surely can: 

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magmeter.htm (http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magmeter.htm) 

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=gaussmeter (https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=gaussmeter) 

https://web.archive.org/web/20070815103923/https://www.modelbouwforum.nl/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7834 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070815103923/https://www.modelbouwforum.nl/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7834)   

and here is an integrated magnetic sensor IC (but probably there are some from other manufacturers): 

http://www.ti.com/product/DRV425 (http://www.ti.com/product/DRV425) 

Gyula

Thanks Gyula,

i have build such a hall sensor probe, see diagram below (modified by ION) and it works fine on magnets.
I attached it to a x1 probe for my scope (new TP3 for ground) and clearly shows N (up) and S (down) (+ / - 2.5V) for magnets.

But it seems to have a hard time measuring the big coils magnetic field, probably due to the strength and / or
high RF surrounding it.

I see the frequency, but only down (south) going pulses are seen independent of how i hold the hall.

Need to test it further here and perhaps need to decouple some points.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 15, 2019, 11:36:09 AM
Hi Rick, 

Thanks for the long reply, you are a good writer and a persevering salesman as well.  I appreciate your taking
the time for the long typing but I am not yet convinced your setup with a certain number of receiver units gives
an overall extra output versus the input, sorry.

In this situation, perhaps the best next step would be if you could mention the many mistakes you found in
Itsu's setup, we may all learn about your comments and Itsu may achieve extra output.  He included the needed
details on wire diameter, measured inductance for the coils, coil diameter etc so you could compare them to
that of your coils. He also included the scope shots and the voltage amplitudes.
I hope you do not state that only your components / parts in your kit are able to give extra output. 
I will return to some of your thoughts included in your answer later on. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 15, 2019, 12:49:24 PM
Hi Itsu,

If you use the UGN3503 type sensor from Allegro, its data sheet says it has a flat response up to 23 kHz. 
You could check its response with a ferrite cored coil having at least some ten mH inductance  what you could drive 
by your function generator slightly below 23 kHz to see how the sensor operates within its specified range. 
To limit current taken from your generator a series resistance surely helps when your coil inductance happens 
to be low around 20 kHz range (to protect the FG).  Place the sensor also close to any of the ends of the ferrite core. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 15, 2019, 02:35:56 PM
Hi Itsu,

If you use the UGN3503 type sensor from Allegro, its data sheet says it has a flat response up to 23 kHz. 
You could check its response with a ferrite cored coil having at least some ten mH inductance  what you could drive 
by your function generator slightly below 23 kHz to see how the sensor operates within its specified range. 
To limit current taken from your generator a series resistance surely helps when your coil inductance happens 
to be low around 20 kHz range (to protect the FG).  Place the sensor also close to any of the ends of the ferrite core. 

Gyula
I have a linear hall like that i didn't bother with the voltmeter i just used 2 red leds some have an internal regulator.
Point is do IMPulse's kill it psychotic laugh  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D bag of ten for a few Euros.
ALL in all best ever coil for a back EMF is a Tesla pancake bifilar winding you just can't beat it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 15, 2019, 05:25:36 PM
Endlessoceans:  You have to remember that the world is full of people with different skills.  I have looked at many attempted replications and they have all one thing in common.  People do not follow the instructions!! 


You should build your own resonance kit and experiment with it.
I for one  am grateful that Rick has opened up on the free energy front.


In any case no-one is forcing you to buy his kits.  For the record the book accompanying the kit is worth more than the kit itself.


And video 7 (which I have) is a gem of information.


However I will say this.  The Free energy business has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.  You can now buy a 250 watt solar panel for around £100 in the Uk (130 dollars) and that is a game changer.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 15, 2019, 05:49:24 PM
Endlessoceans:  You have to remember that the world is full of people with different skills.  I have looked at many attempted replications and they have all one thing in common.  People do not follow the instructions!! 


You should build your own resonance kit and experiment with it.
I for one  am grateful that Rick has opened up on the free energy front.


In any case no-one is forcing you to buy his kits.  For the record the book accompanying the kit is worth more than the kit itself.


And video 7 (which I have) is a gem of information.


However I will say this.  The Free energy business has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.  You can now buy a 250 watt solar panel for around £100 in the Uk (130 dollars) and that is a game changer.
You will be lucky the UK is not in the goldilocks zone. in the uk you will be lucky to get a third of that with all that spraying and rain! And Maplins were never cheep ! ;D any way how much is Rick selling the book and the disk for with out the coils as i don't think i'm interested in building the Newman Motor.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 15, 2019, 06:01:38 PM
Hi G, I guess you didn't read my main point: There is no reason for anyone to believe anyone's testimony on this or any forum. Why do you think I was trying to convince you? Now I can easily convince you on the non-testimony points whether you verbally admit that or not. But I would think anyone to be credulous to believe a mere statement even if I had pictures. Believing with supporting video may be a little less credulous, but it still is.

Now if we look carefully at your position in these matters with your insistence about measuring LEDs, and your questions to me in that respect, we find that you now show your skepticism bent. Notice I answered your point in that measurement is 0.5W each (it is sometimes 3W when I put the ferrite coil in the transmitter, which also brings down the input to 0.5W) with larger LEDs. There were 15 total as I had 4 smaller coils with larger bulbs as well (one under the table and 4 at the top at one point--10 big coils, 4 smaller, and 1 on a ferrite rod). There were 75 small coils with LEDs totaling over 2W. So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input. All 18 people at the meeting could see that I could continue to add more and more coils with loads which only brought the input down. So now you are stuck here in your skepticism because I have explained what I have done in the pictures and you have decided to tell everyone that you refuse to believe this testimony that complies with your conditions of belief. The fact is that with skeptics like you no matter what you tell me or anyone to do you will always choose to disbelieve a claim.

Now I am saying that NO ONE should believe any claim or picture or video posted on this or any Forum. No one should believe anything without sufficient reason. You would be gullible to do so. However, I find you contradict yourself in that you APPEAR to propose to me the idea that you WOULD BE convinced of my statement that there was OU in the setup if I measured the bulbs and found them to total more than the input. I did just that and you respond that you "are not yet convinced" this "gives an overall extra output". I complied with your requests (measurements) and your response is blanket disbelief with no reasons given other than "sorry" (what is sorry but an emotional reason). I find that fascinating. What I am doing here is exposing the fundamental mistakes people are making here on the forums. People like you are sharing your disbelief of claims with the impression that if sufficient testing is revealed through (what???) pictures, video, and testimony with acceptable metering that you may be convinced. Is that not fair to say? Are you not telling everyone that you may be convinced of something here on this forum like that? Or is this all just word games with people?

My question is more fundamental: Why do you give the impression to anyone like me that you could be convinced of any OU claim if these kinds of conditions would be met? That sounds like a game to me. That also sounds credulous. Why would you believe any claim when no amount of pictures, videos, or testimony ought to be believed through an online forum when only real and live witnessing/experience can produce rational conviction. So you see I am not expecting you or anyone to believe my story even though you all think that I am doing that. (I merely offer it up as possible as I know my setup was a focus here, and at least one customer may especially benefit from the details).

Again, my points are:
1. No one should believe any testimony in the form of words, pictures, or videos coming from an online forum because such cannot be conclusively proven to be real. This is hard to accept but it is true.
2. You imply that that is not correct or reasonable. You suggest that if I provide something to this effect that you would believe the claim.
3. Once your conditions were fulfilled you still refused to believe a claim with the appearance of that being a mere refusal rather than for the reason of there being a non-fulfillment of your conditions.

So these are the games everyone is playing on these forums. You are all being too vague about what you are trying to accomplish by all this. Notice the title of this thread: Confirmation of OU devices and claims. Do you suppose there can be actual confirmation of such by one additional testimony? How about two? How many people would it take? What level or what kind of testimony is enough for others to have enough confirmation for it to be reasonable to believe something? You see there is never enough testimony for anyone to do that in this circumstance. You can only confirm for yourself. So the games going on here are merely evidence of credulity and incredulity.

Now it is perfectly fine to offer up schematics and show people what they can try for themselves. If that was the only suggestion that would be fine. But that is not only what is going on here. Most people assuming that sufficient evidences can be presented through pictures, video and words to convince themselves of claims, while certain others like you suggest the same but will never actually be convinced even if people fulfill your conditions. So this ends up being a needless tension game as one person has revealed to me.

You misunderstand me again in that I am not a salesman in what I said. I am not saying that people have to buy parts from me. I am just saying that I have zero ability to judge another persons work while not being there. Even with my own parts it is very hard to ensure people are doing things right. I have many years of experience with many people doing these kinds of experiments or otherwise electrical testing where I have spent hours with them over the phone troubleshooting. Just last week will be an example. I had customers bring in their setups of my systems. After talking with them for hours (and in some cases looking at their pictures and videos) I still did not discover mistakes made because of assumptions. When they brought in the setups (now in the real world) I then was able to carefully look them over to see some mistakes that more or less affected functionality. So I don't say these things without justification or many years of experience in technical troubleshooting and being owner and moderator of technology forums. I have done this fulltime for 15 years now.

To clarify my comments about finding mistakes in Itzu's setup. As he has done much more since when I examined his details I don't think it would be right to refer to my observations. It would be better for me to look at his latest work which I may not get the chance to do. My point in mentioning his mistakes is not to discredit his claims but to draw attention to the problem of the fundamentally wrong assumptions of these forums, and specifically in this case that you cannot confirm or disprove a claim of another, especially by changing the details (in this case the parts). And deeper than this, that the claim or counter-claim should not be believed anyway in this place. But if I did assume that a counter-claim should be believed with sufficient enough pictures and detailed testimony from Itzu, then I at least bring up the point that how do I know that he properly made his parts? If the parts are not the same how could that be a properly controlled experiment? How can I tell it is free from fakery? How can I tell he is able to properly measure or conduct the experiments? I recall him having significant differences and also assuming various errors. And because I have a lot of experience in trying to help people who are not in my presence I realized that it would be a fruitless effort to try and correct the matter. My point is not that you cannot make for yourself a resonance induction coupler system as many have done. But that you cannot evaluate a claim of another person or a kit without having the actual parts and understanding how to use them. Is that not reasonable???

Now I am not suggesting that the ideas presented in my kit have to be precisely made in a certain way. On the contrary, these processes have been used billions of times over the last 130 years. But someone's failure to understand how to make it work should not persuade anyone of anything, neither someone claiming that they have confirmed it. For are we basing our beliefs on popularity? Are there not stricter rules for producing rational conviction? This is the next step. This needs to be settled first. This is the first point in any forums otherwise we have this mass confusion that leads to what we find throughout the free energy community (and indeed throughout modern culture). And as part of that you need to come clean with everyone exactly what you are doing here in this respect. Again, you implied that claims could be believed through this medium but then when your conditions are met you refuse to believe and merely say sorry as your justification. You need to tell everyone that you will never have sufficient reasons to believe a claim on such forums (and that would be a good thing to do for the reasons I gave) or if you say otherwise you need to say exactly what conditions are sufficient. But if you are set to always disbelieve a claim, even when your conditions are met, then you merely play games with people as countless skeptics have done. So you need to explain yourself here.

You can see here that unless we start upon a solid foundation then our speculations will be just random and meaningless. All claims and information on forums are merely helpful to the individual to confirm matters for themselves. It is merely to give ideas to try. It cannot ever prove or disprove anything. Now I have suggested many things in my long posting that people can verify or disprove to themselves. And I have given many kits for people to play around with as a means for self-verification. This forum has hundreds of suggestions of the same nature. My focus has shifted away from a focus on specific parts (and hoping for magical results) to themes (where you understand key processes and then can make any parts dance for you). Again, it is important experimentally understand by experience resonance and related ideas. But even before that, unless the bias principle is forsaken, no matter what you do you will fail in this and any matter of investigation. And unless you can overcome the bias of mainstream restrictions (which is like seeing everything with 2 dimensional lenses rather than 3D) you will fail. You will not look where you do not expect to see. You will disbelieve even what you see if you are not willing to see it. And you will refuse to admit even what you know to be true. These are the foundations which you cannot bypass. All bypass is merely a foolish game wasting everyone's time.

On your end if you can somehow prove the vaguely implied claim that resonance is merely a transformer or accumulating process and that there cannot possibly be an environmental gain, then you will prove most of the chatter on this forum to be foolishness (as indeed many believe). Obviously those who are hoping to see OU or something beneficial in my setup have to believe otherwise, that resonance is a gain in some way. So this is a starting point. Which is it? Can it be proven that resonance is not a gain, that it is merely a distribution of volts and amps over time? If so, then what you go into this with is what you will come out with. And when you play the piano it will be with all dampers locked onto strings (and added dampers on the high strings that don't normally have them) so that even when you strike a key the damper will not lift. Oh, and you remove the soundboard and the environment itself! Welcome to the one dimensional world of mainstream college level electronics. But don't fool yourself or anyone into thinking that someone's failure to produce some result somehow can establish that resonance is not a gain for anyone else (especially through the means of an online forum).

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. It would be better to say high point or tuned point. Again, the pianist playing the piano is merely science fiction as the piano cannot do such things that produce an excess of energy or that are non-conservative.

To create the proper organization for this study of experience surrounding my kit, which assume resonance is a gain, you need to settle these points FIRST. If you do not believe resonance is a gain then you need to state that is where you are coming from so that we can see that your goal is not to benefit from the research presented here but to merely try and show how mistaken people are in these matters. I suggest people start at the beginning rather than play the games that most play. Failure to do that has only resulted in all the uncertainty people on both sides live with. This is true in all other areas of life.

Now, the secondary point after the foundation has been developed and adhered to is addressing all the dampers mainstream practice puts on the piano to kill the resonance gains with specific limited and resistance loads so that they assume there is but a single body circuit, and Kirchhoff is a universal law, and gains in local environment are NOT to be considered. They take away the fullness of life and want us to believe in only the fundamental key, and urge us to ignore the affects in the real world. They will impulse a motor to create (magnetic) motor action and ignore the other half of the energy in the negative spike that could charge a battery as I have done for years. They will magnetically impulse an inductor to create electrical generation but ignore the magnetic energy produced by the inductor (and call that merely a reflection of the transmitter). They will ring a bell with a rubber band around the bell so that you only consider one dampened strike. They will load the transmitter so that it is out of resonance. They (MIT 2007) will judge the efficiency of resonance induction coupling by placing only one receiver coil in a small percentage of the transmitter's radiation and act like that represents a full transfer of energy when many more equal loads could be added all around the transmitter to show more energy production than what was input. This is my point in my pictures (and I have exposed this in my book). Again, if you assume there can only be one receiver coil then you limit the output by the percentage of the field you place the coil in, and by the square of the distance away from it. But if you are honest you will see that if you are only taking a small percentage of the output then you will consider it just that. In my pictures I am only taking a small percentage of the radiations, and yet I am not even cancelling out the radiations of the transmitter beyond the coils that are being influenced by such radiations passing beyond them. It's more complicated than that as you can directly capacitively couple to receiver coils as well.

The showing of the two pictures was merely a kind of follow up of what Don Smith envisioned with his first model with 4 extra coils off the transmitter where he said you could fill a room and duplicate the energy. The point is easily proven by anyone who is not afraid to try. This is not an attempt to prove to others but rather for encouragement for people to try it. But the naysayers lie to the public in presenting in such a way as to imply that only one receiver coil can benefit as if the total energy actually flows from one transmitter into the receiver coil when that is completely false.

Of course there will be no response to these critical and fundamental points I have addressed by those who want to continue playing the games on these forums. I say all this to demystify these games for those who have ears to here. Don't believe the diversions. And don't believe any claim for or against. Only believe that which has been sufficiently established to yourself. And only proceed after you establish a proper foundation (which is evident most people are lacking as observed by what is stated and assumed).

You don't need my parts to consider any of these things. I just made an AM transmitter coil with decent Q over 100 and focused on a medium frequency of 1.25MHz with 100pf standard cap (with low Q for safety). That works well for these experiments. You can see I made two larger coils that had the same inductance so that the same frequency and capacitance could be used (the 10 coils were slightly off however). These had higher Q and resulted in greater gains (I don't expect you to believe this). The kit, and these bigger coils, are not in a 1/4 wavelength relationship, so I did not make this kit all that it could be. Ideally there is one secondary closely coupled (but still loosely) to the transmitter so that all the flux passes through it before continuing on THROUGH external receiver coils as shown in the picture (which could represent powering the small input power like Don Smith's input wires from the battery that were a wavelength of the primary). That secondary in a quarter wave length, not considering the other receiver coils, would be influenced to experience the full extent of the primary fluxing in each turn of its windings so that when loaded you could more fully appreciate the gains produced by the primary resonance amplification of energy. But to claim to be estimating the transmitting energy gains by a distant receiver coil's output (that is only influenced by a small percentage of radiation) is misleading (as in the case of the MIT demonstration). So my demo was only to show more coils with a 360 rotation (still only a small angle of the total radiation). But this was also to show the relay effect (relay coils that were also loaded) indicating that the receiver coils now become transmitters (and thus the process can start all over again, and even power the initial transmitter when properly phased/placed). G, it doesn't take a whole lot of time for you to play around with this and drop the input power down to zero or almost zero. It's up to you to convince yourself. You ought not to be convinced by any of my pictures, videos, or words. Don't pretend that you should be and that I haven't provided enough evidence. There is no such things as evidence through online forums. No such thing. People, realize that just because someone says they disbelieve something it doesn't mean they are telling the truth to you, or even to themselves. Many skeptics do believe but are afraid to admit the truth. Many more are merely trying to draw out more information from you so that you can work for them for free as they actually are developing this technology. Of course there are also those who monitor people as well. These things are a lot more sophisticated than you would think. I have seen this face to face over the years.

Hi Rick, 

Thanks for the long reply, you are a good writer and a persevering salesman as well.  I appreciate your taking the time for the long typing but I am not yet convinced your setup with a certain number of receiver units gives an overall extra output versus the input, sorry.

In this situation, perhaps the best next step would be if you could mention the many mistakes you found in
Itsu's setup, we may all learn about your comments and Itsu may achieve extra output.  He included the needed details on wire diameter, measured inductance for the coils, coil diameter etc so you could compare them to that of your coils. He also included the scope shots and the voltage amplitudes.
I hope you do not state that only your components / parts in your kit are able to give extra output. 
I will return to some of your thoughts included in your answer later on. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 15, 2019, 06:22:30 PM
Thanks guys. Yeah the only reason I am doing this is because people asked for this. And since they ask for more I continue as long as there is interest.

As for the last point about solar, it is an important factor. I know of about 100 different kinds ways (and many models) to make free energy but only around 15 that I make are practical and better than solar. That is in most places around the world. Not here because in Michigan we have zero solar benefit for almost 6 months so solar is not an option at all. The considerations for a free energy system are not limited to these:
1. Are the parts costly?
2. Will they become obsolete?
3. Is the assembly difficult and thus costly?
4. Is the operation finnicky or unstable requiring constant readjustment (like old interrupters)?
5. Is it safe for the operator or environment?
Many proposed systems are not practical in light of these considerations. I get thousands of recommendations from people constantly from all over the world. So I have to judge them accordingly. How many people have spent years developing something that is just not practical? It may show some physics laws to need changing, and it may eventually lead to something more practical, but it can't compete with other systems. On the flip side, some systems are to simple and small to be allowed. They will always be kept from the general public for good and bad reasons. So this removes 5 to 10 off my list of 15...


Endlessoceans:  You have to remember that the world is full of people with different skills.  I have looked at many attempted replications and they have all one thing in common.  People do not follow the instructions!! 


You should build your own resonance kit and experiment with it.
I for one  am grateful that Rick has opened up on the free energy front.


In any case no-one is forcing you to buy his kits.  For the record the book accompanying the kit is worth more than the kit itself.


And video 7 (which I have) is a gem of information.


However I will say this.  The Free energy business has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.  You can now buy a 250 watt solar panel for around £100 in the Uk (130 dollars) and that is a game changer.

AND THE REPLY TO THAT:
You will be lucky the UK is not in the goldilocks zone. in the uk you will be lucky to get a third of that with all that spraying and rain! And Maplins were never cheep !  any way how much is Rick selling the book and the disk for with out the coils as i don't think i'm interested in building the Newman Motor.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: e2matrix on June 15, 2019, 06:24:00 PM
e2matrix,

i agree with you,  and i knew upfront that, at most, i would be "a toy" as i saw this below review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BXoqb9LRZE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BXoqb9LRZE)

Not sure about the skills of that guy doing the teardown, as he was unable to "see" how the 9V battery
needed to be placed (only one way possible).

But yes, the electrical field detector seems to be a dual sided PCB and the magnetic field detector an
inductor (not a resistor) mounted up high off and next to that PCB.

Anyway, it indicates some differences in field strengths, but up till now did not reveal any extra energy
which otherwise would be missed using the scope.....


Itsu


That was rather sloppy of me to miss that was an inductor (which makes a lot more sense).  I just took a very quick look without counting the bands or noticing the L3 printed on the circuit board.  It just looked like a resistor at quick glance - my mistake.   This meter is really odd though.  I can hold it up against - in direct contact with an electronic device and it shows zero reading - no EMF or gauss reading whereas one of my other meters picks up EMF from that same device from at least 2 feet away.   My other meter is screaming (audio output also) when it gets right up against it so in just that one test I assume this Kmoon is either defective or very insensitive. 


If you are just interested mostly in magnetic field readings and have a smart phone most of them have a fairly sensitive magnetic field reading capability.   There are a lot of Apps that will give you microTelsa (also gauss and milligauss) values like this one:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mreprogramming.ultimateemfdetector (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mreprogramming.ultimateemfdetector)



You might want to use a spare phone though in case you get some really strong fields that might damage a phone.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: steeltpu on June 15, 2019, 07:30:09 PM
Hi G, I guess you didn't read my main point: There is no reason for anyone to believe anyone's testimony on this or any forum. Why do you think I was trying to convince you? Now I can easily convince you on the non-testimony points whether you verbally admit that or not. But I would think anyone to be credulous to believe a mere statement even if I had pictures. Believing with supporting video may be a little less credulous, but it still is.

Now if we look carefully at your position in these matters with your insistence about measuring LEDs, and your questions to me in that respect, we find that you now show your skepticism bent. Notice I answered your point in that measurement is 0.5W each (it is sometimes 3W when I put the ferrite coil in the transmitter, which also brings down the input to 0.5W) with larger LEDs. There were 15 total as I had 4 smaller coils with larger bulbs as well (one under the table and 4 at the top at one point--10 big coils, 4 smaller, and 1 on a ferrite rod). There were 75 small coils with LEDs totaling over 2W. So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input. All 18 people at the meeting could see that I could continue to add more and more coils with loads which only brought the input down. So now you are stuck here in your skepticism because I have explained what I have done in the pictures and you have decided to tell everyone that you refuse to believe this testimony that complies with your conditions of belief. The fact is that with skeptics like you no matter what you tell me or anyone to do you will always choose to disbelieve a claim.

Now I am saying that NO ONE should believe any claim or picture or video posted on this or any Forum. No one should believe anything without sufficient reason. You would be gullible to do so. However, I find you contradict yourself in that you APPEAR to propose to me the idea that you WOULD BE convinced of my statement that there was OU in the setup if I measured the bulbs and found them to total more than the input. I did just that and you respond that you "are not yet convinced" this "gives an overall extra output". I complied with your requests (measurements) and your response is blanket disbelief with no reasons given other than "sorry" (what is sorry but an emotional reason). I find that fascinating. What I am doing here is exposing the fundamental mistakes people are making here on the forums. People like you are sharing your disbelief of claims with the impression that if sufficient testing is revealed through (what???) pictures, video, and testimony with acceptable metering that you may be convinced. Is that not fair to say? Are you not telling everyone that you may be convinced of something here on this forum like that? Or is this all just word games with people?

My question is more fundamental: Why do you give the impression to anyone like me that you could be convinced of any OU claim if these kinds of conditions would be met? That sounds like a game to me. That also sounds credulous. Why would you believe any claim when no amount of pictures, videos, or testimony ought to be believed through an online forum when only real and live witnessing/experience can produce rational conviction. So you see I am not expecting you or anyone to believe my story even though you all think that I am doing that. (I merely offer it up as possible as I know my setup was a focus here, and at least one customer may especially benefit from the details).

Again, my points are:
1. No one should believe any testimony in the form of words, pictures, or videos coming from an online forum because such cannot be conclusively proven to be real. This is hard to accept but it is true.
2. You imply that that is not correct or reasonable. You suggest that if I provide something to this effect that you would believe the claim.
3. Once your conditions were fulfilled you still refused to believe a claim with the appearance of that being a mere refusal rather than for the reason of there being a non-fulfillment of your conditions.

So these are the games everyone is playing on these forums. You are all being too vague about what you are trying to accomplish by all this. Notice the title of this thread: Confirmation of OU devices and claims. Do you suppose there can be actual confirmation of such by one additional testimony? How about two? How many people would it take? What level or what kind of testimony is enough for others to have enough confirmation for it to be reasonable to believe something? You see there is never enough testimony for anyone to do that in this circumstance. You can only confirm for yourself. So the games going on here are merely evidence of credulity and incredulity.

Now it is perfectly fine to offer up schematics and show people what they can try for themselves. If that was the only suggestion that would be fine. But that is not only what is going on here. Most people assuming that sufficient evidences can be presented through pictures, video and words to convince themselves of claims, while certain others like you suggest the same but will never actually be convinced even if people fulfill your conditions. So this ends up being a needless tension game as one person has revealed to me.

You misunderstand me again in that I am not a salesman in what I said. I am not saying that people have to buy parts from me. I am just saying that I have zero ability to judge another persons work while not being there. Even with my own parts it is very hard to ensure people are doing things right. I have many years of experience with many people doing these kinds of experiments or otherwise electrical testing where I have spent hours with them over the phone troubleshooting. Just last week will be an example. I had customers bring in their setups of my systems. After talking with them for hours (and in some cases looking at their pictures and videos) I still did not discover mistakes made because of assumptions. When they brought in the setups (now in the real world) I then was able to carefully look them over to see some mistakes that more or less affected functionality. So I don't say these things without justification or many years of experience in technical troubleshooting and being owner and moderator of technology forums. I have done this fulltime for 15 years now.

To clarify my comments about finding mistakes in Itzu's setup. As he has done much more since when I examined his details I don't think it would be right to refer to my observations. It would be better for me to look at his latest work which I may not get the chance to do. My point in mentioning his mistakes is not to discredit his claims but to draw attention to the problem of the fundamentally wrong assumptions of these forums, and specifically in this case that you cannot confirm or disprove a claim of another, especially by changing the details (in this case the parts). And deeper than this, that the claim or counter-claim should not be believed anyway in this place. But if I did assume that a counter-claim should be believed with sufficient enough pictures and detailed testimony from Itzu, then I at least bring up the point that how do I know that he properly made his parts? If the parts are not the same how could that be a properly controlled experiment? How can I tell it is free from fakery? How can I tell he is able to properly measure or conduct the experiments? I recall him having significant differences and also assuming various errors. And because I have a lot of experience in trying to help people who are not in my presence I realized that it would be a fruitless effort to try and correct the matter. My point is not that you cannot make for yourself a resonance induction coupler system as many have done. But that you cannot evaluate a claim of another person or a kit without having the actual parts and understanding how to use them. Is that not reasonable???

Now I am not suggesting that the ideas presented in my kit have to be precisely made in a certain way. On the contrary, these processes have been used billions of times over the last 130 years. But someone's failure to understand how to make it work should not persuade anyone of anything, neither someone claiming that they have confirmed it. For are we basing our beliefs on popularity? Are there not stricter rules for producing rational conviction? This is the next step. This needs to be settled first. This is the first point in any forums otherwise we have this mass confusion that leads to what we find throughout the free energy community (and indeed throughout modern culture). And as part of that you need to come clean with everyone exactly what you are doing here in this respect. Again, you implied that claims could be believed through this medium but then when your conditions are met you refuse to believe and merely say sorry as your justification. You need to tell everyone that you will never have sufficient reasons to believe a claim on such forums (and that would be a good thing to do for the reasons I gave) or if you say otherwise you need to say exactly what conditions are sufficient. But if you are set to always disbelieve a claim, even when your conditions are met, then you merely play games with people as countless skeptics have done. So you need to explain yourself here.

You can see here that unless we start upon a solid foundation then our speculations will be just random and meaningless. All claims and information on forums are merely helpful to the individual to confirm matters for themselves. It is merely to give ideas to try. It cannot ever prove or disprove anything. Now I have suggested many things in my long posting that people can verify or disprove to themselves. And I have given many kits for people to play around with as a means for self-verification. This forum has hundreds of suggestions of the same nature. My focus has shifted away from a focus on specific parts (and hoping for magical results) to themes (where you understand key processes and then can make any parts dance for you). Again, it is important experimentally understand by experience resonance and related ideas. But even before that, unless the bias principle is forsaken, no matter what you do you will fail in this and any matter of investigation. And unless you can overcome the bias of mainstream restrictions (which is like seeing everything with 2 dimensional lenses rather than 3D) you will fail. You will not look where you do not expect to see. You will disbelieve even what you see if you are not willing to see it. And you will refuse to admit even what you know to be true. These are the foundations which you cannot bypass. All bypass is merely a foolish game wasting everyone's time.

On your end if you can somehow prove the vaguely implied claim that resonance is merely a transformer or accumulating process and that there cannot possibly be an environmental gain, then you will prove most of the chatter on this forum to be foolishness (as indeed many believe). Obviously those who are hoping to see OU or something beneficial in my setup have to believe otherwise, that resonance is a gain in some way. So this is a starting point. Which is it? Can it be proven that resonance is not a gain, that it is merely a distribution of volts and amps over time? If so, then what you go into this with is what you will come out with. And when you play the piano it will be with all dampers locked onto strings (and added dampers on the high strings that don't normally have them) so that even when you strike a key the damper will not lift. Oh, and you remove the soundboard and the environment itself! Welcome to the one dimensional world of mainstream college level electronics. But don't fool yourself or anyone into thinking that someone's failure to produce some result somehow can establish that resonance is not a gain for anyone else (especially through the means of an online forum).

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. It would be better to say high point or tuned point. Again, the pianist playing the piano is merely science fiction as the piano cannot do such things that produce an excess of energy or that are non-conservative.

To create the proper organization for this study of experience surrounding my kit, which assume resonance is a gain, you need to settle these points FIRST. If you do not believe resonance is a gain then you need to state that is where you are coming from so that we can see that your goal is not to benefit from the research presented here but to merely try and show how mistaken people are in these matters. I suggest people start at the beginning rather than play the games that most play. Failure to do that has only resulted in all the uncertainty people on both sides live with. This is true in all other areas of life.

Now, the secondary point after the foundation has been developed and adhered to is addressing all the dampers mainstream practice puts on the piano to kill the resonance gains with specific limited and resistance loads so that they assume there is but a single body circuit, and Kirchhoff is a universal law, and gains in local environment are NOT to be considered. They take away the fullness of life and want us to believe in only the fundamental key, and urge us to ignore the affects in the real world. They will impulse a motor to create (magnetic) motor action and ignore the other half of the energy in the negative spike that could charge a battery as I have done for years. They will magnetically impulse an inductor to create electrical generation but ignore the magnetic energy produced by the inductor (and call that merely a reflection of the transmitter). They will ring a bell with a rubber band around the bell so that you only consider one dampened strike. They will load the transmitter so that it is out of resonance. They (MIT 2007) will judge the efficiency of resonance induction coupling by placing only one receiver coil in a small percentage of the transmitter's radiation and act like that represents a full transfer of energy when many more equal loads could be added all around the transmitter to show more energy production than what was input. This is my point in my pictures (and I have exposed this in my book). Again, if you assume there can only be one receiver coil then you limit the output by the percentage of the field you place the coil in, and by the square of the distance away from it. But if you are honest you will see that if you are only taking a small percentage of the output then you will consider it just that. In my pictures I am only taking a small percentage of the radiations, and yet I am not even cancelling out the radiations of the transmitter beyond the coils that are being influenced by such radiations passing beyond them. It's more complicated than that as you can directly capacitively couple to receiver coils as well.

The showing of the two pictures was merely a kind of follow up of what Don Smith envisioned with his first model with 4 extra coils off the transmitter where he said you could fill a room and duplicate the energy. The point is easily proven by anyone who is not afraid to try. This is not an attempt to prove to others but rather for encouragement for people to try it. But the naysayers lie to the public in presenting in such a way as to imply that only one receiver coil can benefit as if the total energy actually flows from one transmitter into the receiver coil when that is completely false.

Of course there will be no response to these critical and fundamental points I have addressed by those who want to continue playing the games on these forums. I say all this to demystify these games for those who have ears to here. Don't believe the diversions. And don't believe any claim for or against. Only believe that which has been sufficiently established to yourself. And only proceed after you establish a proper foundation (which is evident most people are lacking as observed by what is stated and assumed).

You don't need my parts to consider any of these things. I just made an AM transmitter coil with decent Q over 100 and focused on a medium frequency of 1.25MHz with 100pf standard cap (with low Q for safety). That works well for these experiments. You can see I made two larger coils that had the same inductance so that the same frequency and capacitance could be used (the 10 coils were slightly off however). These had higher Q and resulted in greater gains (I don't expect you to believe this). The kit, and these bigger coils, are not in a 1/4 wavelength relationship, so I did not make this kit all that it could be. Ideally there is one secondary closely coupled (but still loosely) to the transmitter so that all the flux passes through it before continuing on THROUGH external receiver coils as shown in the picture (which could represent powering the small input power like Don Smith's input wires from the battery that were a wavelength of the primary). That secondary in a quarter wave length, not considering the other receiver coils, would be influenced to experience the full extent of the primary fluxing in each turn of its windings so that when loaded you could more fully appreciate the gains produced by the primary resonance amplification of energy. But to claim to be estimating the transmitting energy gains by a distant receiver coil's output (that is only influenced by a small percentage of radiation) is misleading (as in the case of the MIT demonstration). So my demo was only to show more coils with a 360 rotation (still only a small angle of the total radiation). But this was also to show the relay effect (relay coils that were also loaded) indicating that the receiver coils now become transmitters (and thus the process can start all over again, and even power the initial transmitter when properly phased/placed). G, it doesn't take a whole lot of time for you to play around with this and drop the input power down to zero or almost zero. It's up to you to convince yourself. You ought not to be convinced by any of my pictures, videos, or words. Don't pretend that you should be and that I haven't provided enough evidence. There is no such things as evidence through online forums. No such thing. People, realize that just because someone says they disbelieve something it doesn't mean they are telling the truth to you, or even to themselves. Many skeptics do believe but are afraid to admit the truth. Many more are merely trying to draw out more information from you so that you can work for them for free as they actually are developing this technology. Of course there are also those who monitor people as well. These things are a lot more sophisticated than you would think. I have seen this face to face over the years.


You have a serious credibility problem:
http://www.energeticforum.com/free-energy-frauds-pseudoskeptics/20700-rick-friedrich-r-charge-scam.html



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 15, 2019, 09:21:57 PM
Steel tpu.  I have read all the comments on that site.  In business there are always disputes (if you have ever worked in one). The facts that are indisputable are these:
Rick worked with Bedini for many years.
I have talked with people in the US who have personal knowledge of individuals  scammed by Bedini for 300,000 Us dollars.
Rick built most of the Bedini systems including the Ferris wheel.
He knows the world's best in this field and we are grateful to have him here.
I would rather take his advice than your advice any day of the week.
You know nothing compared to Rick about this technology.
Stick to the scientific facts and leave business and catty disputes out of pure science.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 15, 2019, 09:29:12 PM
Steel TPU 
As a final note:  I ordered stuff from Rick and it was duly delivered as ordered.
Everything was first class.
The coils were so well made you could use them as an ornament in your house.
The book is brilliant and informative.
The Don Smith book demystifies the process and is a perfect manual for this technology.
( I also have the Book).
Again the book is hard backed and first class  re the information in it.
 (some spelling errors - but nothing to detract from the meaning)
So I have learnt a lot and now understand the Kapanadze process.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 15, 2019, 09:50:37 PM


You don't need my parts to consider any of these things. I just made an AM transmitter coil with decent Q over 100 and focused on a medium frequency of 1.25MHz with 100pf standard cap (with low Q for safety). That works well for these experiments. You can see I made two larger coils that had the same inductance so that the same frequency and capacitance could be used (the 10 coils were slightly off however). These had higher Q and resulted in greater gains (I don't expect you to believe this). The kit, and these bigger coils, are not in a 1/4 wavelength relationship, so I did not make this kit all that it could be. Ideally there is one secondary closely coupled (but still loosely) to the transmitter so that all the flux passes through it before continuing on THROUGH external receiver coils as shown in the picture (which could represent powering the small input power like Don Smith's input wires from the battery that were a wavelength of the primary). That secondary in a quarter wave length, not considering the other receiver coils, would be influenced to experience the full extent of the primary fluxing in each turn of its windings so that when loaded you could more fully appreciate the gains produced by the primary resonance amplification of energy. But to claim to be estimating the transmitting energy gains by a distant receiver coil's output (that is only influenced by a small percentage of radiation) is misleading (as in the case of the MIT demonstration). So my demo was only to show more coils with a 360 rotation (still only a small angle of the total radiation). But this was also to show the relay effect (relay coils that were also loaded) indicating that the receiver coils now become transmitters (and thus the process can start all over again, and even power the initial transmitter when properly phased/placed). G, it doesn't take a whole lot of time for you to play around with this and drop the input power down to zero or almost zero. It's up to you to convince yourself. You ought not to be convinced by any of my pictures, videos, or words. Don't pretend that you should be and that I haven't provided enough evidence. There is no such things as evidence through online forums. No such thing. People, realize that just because someone says they disbelieve something it doesn't mean they are telling the truth to you, or even to themselves. Many skeptics do believe but are afraid to admit the truth. Many more are merely trying to draw out more information from you so that you can work for them for free as they actually are developing this technology. Of course there are also those who monitor people as well. These things are a lot more sophisticated than you would think. I have seen this face to face over the years.
I'm sure that might be the case but your not the only person offing the knowledge for instance there have been many of late and for free as well, if left to some most of the earth would or will be very soon under sea but many labeled as hostile from places like Russia China Lithuania and Korea have all given useful help of knowledge and technical knowhow advice with links on this forum perhaps not this thread though only look.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 16, 2019, 01:04:01 AM
Rick,

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?


Now you wrote this:


....
  Notice I answered your point in that measurement is 0.5W each (it is sometimes 3W when I put the ferrite coil 
in the transmitter, which also brings down the input to 0.5W) with larger LEDs. There were 15 total as I had 4 smaller 
coils with larger bulbs as well (one under the table and 4 at the top at one point--10 big coils, 4 smaller, and 1 on 
a ferrite rod). There were 75 small coils with LEDs totaling over 2W. So we have at least 8W of measured power 
with 0.75W or less input. 
....



If you go back and read what you wrote yesterday, please show me where is the 'measurement' word or any
expression relevant in that part of your text from which I or anyone else should deduce you were writing about
measurements.  This is what you wrote yesterday: 



....
Anyway, would 0.5W on the bulbs be acceptable to you on those bigger bulbs? I know that may be problematic
considering the input was in the picture 1W and with more bulbs and coils 0.75W. Would 0.000A on the input be
acceptable to you? At that point would it matter that I had 1,000,000 little LEDs powered up, 
or several thousand 3W bulbs at 0.5W each? 
....


The measurements made by Itsu are clearly shown and report a COP of 0.3 or so if I recall correctly. This is a huge
difference versus your hints.  He checked LED brightness by feeding in known DC power, etc. 

You did not comply with my requests on correct measurements. 

You hint at not less than you have achieved lossless energy transfer between magnetically coupled resonant LC circuits. 
The labs all over the world seek for doing that but they have not managed to solve that problem.
You need to prove such energy transfer with correct measurements.  Otherwise, only those people who do  not have
as much area ofexpertise as you will believe they have a COP>1 setup. 
If you disagree with this, then prove me wrong.   

Gyula 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 16, 2019, 01:25:09 AM
Rick,

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?


Now you wrote this:
 


If you go back and read what you wrote yesterday, please show me where is the 'measurement' word or any
expression relevant in that part of your text from which I or anyone else should deduce you were writing about
measurements.  This is what you wrote yesterday: 

 

The measurements made by Itsu are clearly shown and report a COP of 0.3 or so if I recall correctly. This is a huge
difference versus your hints.  He checked LED brightness by feeding in known DC power, etc. 

You did not comply with my requests on correct measurements. 

You hint at not less than you have achieved lossless energy transfer between magnetically coupled resonant LC circuits. 
The labs all over the world seek for doing that but they have not managed to solve that problem.
You need to prove such energy transfer with correct measurements.  Otherwise, only those people who do  not have
as much area ofexpertise as you will believe they have a COP>1 setup. 
If you disagree with this, then prove me wrong.   

Gyula
Hmm lighting leds isn't too difficult a task I had a device on my front door porch light 7 years running off mains transit noise through the night in the end some of the leds died and i got fed up with unsoldering the pcbs to replace them and ran out of that type of blue led. if I wanted fre energy led's i could just copy that circuit with out huge coils like Rick is offering. No disrespect intended. :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 16, 2019, 03:04:39 PM
Hello Rick,

I have tried to stay out of this discussion so as no to muddy the waters any more.  But I feel like I need to make a couple of comments. 


I am retired after working for many years as an industrial maintenance electrician.  I have worked on almost any kind of industrial machine you can imagine.  From very large industrial lathes and milling machines that were controlled by CNC systems to 15 KW industrial lasers.  I also have an advanced Amateur Radio operators license (ham).  I think I know a little about electronics.

I first got interested in the idea of OU or free energy shortly after I retired 12 years ago.  I found some early information about John Bedini and saw information about the SSG on the internet.  Because of that I got interested enough to attend the first energy conference in Idaho that I believe you and John and Aaron put on.  I met you and the John and Aaron and Peter there.  I saw you ride your electric powered riding mower into the conference room.  I like you Rick.  I liked you when I met you and I still like you.  But I feel I need to say some things about your presentations.

You keep referring to Don Smith as some kind of OU guru.   For those of us with real electronics training and experience that is a big RED flag.  I have watched several of Don Smith's videos.  He makes many statements that are just not true.  He also uses information from the ARRL handbook for amateur radio operators in a way that is totally wrong.   You can see comments in this thread from others who have seen the same thing.  Claiming Don Smith as some kind of inspiration for your work does not give any credence to your claims.  In fact it casts serious doubts on your claims without even looking further into you claims.

I also as some others have said believe that OU might be possible.  I have seen some things that did make me scratch my head and wonder what was going on.  When John B. and Mathew Jones and I were working on the so called Tesla switch, I for about a week was able to get mine tuned so that it ran a load for the entire week and the batteries voltages stayed the same for that entire time.  I was never able to repeat that.  I just got lucky for a short time I guess.

I want to finish with this bit of advice.  I know from personal experience that using short pulses into a tuned circuit can give some interesting results.  So I think you might possibly have discovered something.  I think the jury is still out on that.   But if you really have something then stop with the long winded posts and give us some real data to look at.  I did watch your videos that A. King posted to OU.com.  You could have easily made them half that long and still said the same things.  Long videos and long posts don't prove claims.  Clear data and accurate measurements prove claims.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: steeltpu on June 16, 2019, 07:09:29 PM
Steel TPU 
As a final note:  I ordered stuff from Rick and it was duly delivered as ordered.
Everything was first class.
The coils were so well made you could use them as an ornament in your house.
The book is brilliant and informative.
The Don Smith book demystifies the process and is a perfect manual for this technology.
( I also have the Book).
Again the book is hard backed and first class  re the information in it.
 (some spelling errors - but nothing to detract from the meaning)
So I have learnt a lot and now understand the Kapanadze process.


a.king21,   you're a good researcher.   glad your experience with rick was good and don't want too discourage you but he's got a long history that isn't good.   seems EF forum isn't the only place he's seen as a snake oil salesman:


https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=jranml2m1nnjekn0oi3jgt2453&topic=3785.msg75248;topicseen#msg75248
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 16, 2019, 07:19:03 PM
Hi Carroll,
Thank you for you comments. Firstly, I don't see why people complain about long videos or points. I am a philosopher and I am just being thorough and accurate. Less words ALWAYS get misunderstood as they lack detail and are ambiguous. You say things could have been shorter but that is not true. It is just that you are only looking for one thing in my videos, the very thing you say here. My object is beyond that point as I am giving details to my students and customers that they ask for. My videos are not for everyone in general but for particular people. It is hard to satisfy everyone in this respect. However, if people are offended with too much information they can always not watch the videos. lol I find it fascinating that people use long videos or postings as some kind of argument against me.
As for Don Smith, I have replicated much of what he showed and claimed so your comments are false in that respect. Don didn't care to cross his ts or dot his eyes because he wasn't going to play the prestige jargon game and was bucking the establishment. I can identify with him as I don't care to master everything when I can have all the top engineers do anything that is necessary and who can talk the talk in the language of the day. I have carefully gone over every detail of what Don shared in the making of my Don Smith Index book and have not found what you say. There were a few misspeaks here and there just like with anyone who gives a talk. There was a few stroke moments as well. But your problem with him is your mistaken or limited view of reality. Anyone experienced in free energy systems can see that Don knew what he was talking about and experienced what he testified about. And there are many Don Smith systems all over the world in use. Even the fully electronic versions that just look like and inverter with a big ground cable. These are all over eastern Europe and Russia. The propaganda on these forums spreads the idea that no one has these things. But there is a larger free energy community that is not online or at least on these almost useless forums. Anyone who gets anywhere with this tech is cast out of these forums, insulted or ignored so they don't waste there time trying to help people that don't really want to be helped.
I know hundreds of people with your experience and more that have way more. In fact most of my customers are such people near retirement or in retirement and after experiencing these phenomena they want to now focus in on developing it out. The skills level thing doesn't establish creditability in these matters as people of all skill levels and experience have succeeded or failed in these matters. But in fact those beyond the college level of study know that all these processes that Don and others talk about and experience are actually used in the commercial world with real products (and it is a hobby of mine to notice as many of these as I can to show by analogy). These processes, as I wrote are on the non-linear reactive side of things, rather than the linear and non-linear resistive side of things. Maybe you are still confining yourself to the negative differential resistance levels of efficiencies rather than the true negative resistance processes. I suggest you go back to Tesla and really learn what he said about his one wire processes, etc. But as for Don, it is obvious that he presented as he did so that those who wanted to stumble would. I see that approach/attitude among many inventors. If you want to find fault then you will find reason to. But if you apply the teaching you can find what you're looking for.

From your expert experience please explain what is important to understand about the synchronous condenser in relation to free energy processes.

As for my 2010 meeting, I have come a long way. If you asked the recent guys at my last meeting at least one who was also at that 2010 meeting will tell you how much different they are. This friend was also a friend of Don Smith and who gave more detailed information from Don that I included in the book (after meeting in Don's house for 2 days and seeing all the prototypes). I did those meetings and John and Aaron merely attended. They were not responsible for making that happen. I should never have given Aaron any part of it as we can all now see how he turned out...

As for the Tesla Switch, this was a bad thing John introduced without proper instruction. It kills batteries as I have talked about many times. The proper way of doing it was on an hourly rotation as Benitez showed 100 years ago. That is why I call his circuits the Benitez Switch to poke and jab and this bad Tesla Switch ideal. Tesla had nothing to do with this. Now I will say, if you have high enough frequency then you can do that in a way that doesn't kill the batteries. Like when Don kept his little batteries charged with the quarter wave on the line. But to push current back and forth as John promoted ruins batteries just like a solar controller does. John only vaguely or indirectly admitted this at my 2010 convention which I showed the clip of him saying the Watson system kills batteries and that was why he went to the two battery method. But the Tesla Switch is a one battery system in that sense that the batteries get rotated rapidly rather than be kept either in charge or load mode for long periods of time before rotating (which is Benitez). So John has caused thousands of people to kill their batteries over the years because he just didn't care about you guys. So now I am having to pick up the pieces and help give direction in this matter. Yes with long details that you don't care for. I do this because I care. I also am partly responsible for promoting him...

I can see after all this time you are just at the very beginning of this research. What you are talking about is the concept developed by Tesla in his early lectures entitled "The Impedance Phenomena". You can see what people called the Hairpin circuit there, which is a misnaming of the diagram. I have called in the Tesla Impedance circuit because that was the subject he was illustrating and the name hairpin gives the wrong idea that this was a curved circuit when it really was merely a straight line where two points of the load were connected at the right nodal points. This is a major theme that I have long demonstrated over these last 15 years with the motors and now with the rf systems. This is exactly what Bedini was dealing with in DVD7 which was very important. It is not really pulsed DC but is impulse. And the rate of change affects the outcome. John and I have focused on the negative impulsing but I have moved on to also the positive impulsing at rf frequencies. The SG was just a very simple method for creating this effect but hardly anyone listened carefully and I guess only a few students listened and applied DVD7. One of my students did just that and made the black box 5 years ago that we demonstrated here in the US and in Europe. The purpose of the SG was to introduce this impulse technology and negative energy engineering to the world. The batteries as the load was an easy method to see this. I have recently organized these ideas, especially for the need to see as Barrett pointed out, the idea of many body circuits in my Loving paths teaching which gives clarity to the difference between the closed sing loops and the open multiple loops. Yet few people listened when I taught all these years about how if you have bigger and/or more batteries then you could have greater results. But just rotating batteries around is incredible enough. Of course I have demonstrated that for years so I don't understand you last comments about just show us something. What do you think I have been doing for the last 15 years. You saw the lawnmower running off of 10A @36V while charging an equal battery bank of tiny lawn batteries equal to 13AH. Nothing hidden there so anyone could replicate that. Of course I put that motor in the boat the next year with two more coils on it and people got rides and could see everything as well. My point was to show you all that there was nothing sophisticated in any of it, and it was just the basic circuit but bigger. Other people were into making things hard. But when I did the boat then they all turned on me the next day and things have never been the same. They all tried to destroy me because I guess I crossed a line in showing that.
Anyway, the charging of batteries was only one kind of load and engineering of the negative impulse. When we gave the DVD7 this took it to another level as I quoted the other day. I don't see any development of what John said in that DVD. Even the slanderous liar Bedini Worshippers did not even understand this teaching. Even Aaron and Peter never shared this with all of you in this advertised "ADVANCED" SSG books. You really have to ask yourself why. I can't say this of Peter as he definitely knows this, but Aaron probably doesn't understand the negative energy engineering and what John talks about in the DVD7. So he never included it because he either didn't even know about it, or didn't understand it, or didn't want you all to know about it. Either case is not good. It should have been the number 1 focus of this and his forums. But there is silence. Now I talked about it even before that video on the groups that Bedini deleted. I not only explained it back in those early years of 2005-2007 and beyond, but also developed on the trigger side of the circuit. That is I used transformers as "nodes", or various inductors. You see the very small figure 5 of Tesla's True Wireless gives you the various arrangements for what you can do in relation to what John said in DVD7. So if you want to begin to learn this beyond the baby level SSG experience I have just given you everything you need to know. Of course I spent 10 hours teaching on this at the last meeting. But do not miss the statement from John that I highlighted in big bold red letters because everyone missed it. That you could multiply as many of these nodes as you wanted. So here you have Bedini giving you the secret of how to multiply the energy. I understood that early on and tried to tell people these things. Now I understand better and am more organized in this.

You guys make me laugh in saying that I may have discovered something with impulse technology. It shows that you are just beginning to understand what this is about. No, I have long demonstrated impulse technology giving more demonstrations than anyone else in a variety of ways. I have often demonstrated continuous running of systems where the batteries self-charged on my motors using this process just explained. But more importantly, I have explained how to do it. For I found that it is more important for people to learn the themes and ways to make it work rather than for people to just try and copy parts arrangements and then just look to models for the answer.
Anyway, your final comments reveal that you are not paying attention to what I have shown and done. I have long given data and details. I have long given demonstrations. I have long given instructions. You guys just repeating these lines as if I haven't is just misleading to others. And as I have pointed out, you cannot prove anything over the internet. When will you guys get that??? People can say anything and there is no reason for anyone to believe anything that is said, shown in picture or video. Why do you think otherwise? You have been fooled by these forums into thinking so. And then when someone attempts to show something you end up never being satisfied because you ought to never be satisfied. So it is an endless game as I mentioned that people like G are playing with you (as I will point out again). No, clear data and showing everything does not prove anything. Explain to me how you could prove anything over the internet? Why will no one address this point??? I think people have already proven these things out and just want people to work for them for free on the one hand. And other people are too lazy to actually do testing for themselves and want someone to try and prove things for them, when they really can only prove these things to themselves. You see now why you misunderstand my videos. You are looking for proof in my videos, but I am not a fool in thinking a video can prove anything. I am merely showing people what they can do for themselves to prove things to themselves. Do you hear me here??? Do you understand now? Now you go back and watch and not misjudge my motives. You see who I am talking to. I am not doing videos for skeptics or those who do not already know these things by experience. I had my years and years of doing that on the forums. I proved what I could and won the debates and the skeptics conceded, converted, and those that didn't just said that only 3 outputs for one input was necessary to satisfy them. lol So I gave them that as well. I accomplished my goals and now I just help those who sincerely have come out of these silly forums and their games and who just want to learn the technology. So my videos are not for you guys still seeking free energy, but for those who actually want my details. I have explained that many times but people only jump through my videos looking for proofs and thus miss the details. You all just want to bypass leaning how these things work and just want to copy a working model. So just go back to the beginning and you will see all that.

Wow, you wrote a lot. You could have just said all that in a few word. lol

Hello Rick,

I have tried to stay out of this discussion so as no to muddy the waters any more.  But I feel like I need to make a couple of comments. 


I am retired after working for many years as an industrial maintenance electrician.  I have worked on almost any kind of industrial machine you can imagine.  From very large industrial lathes and milling machines that were controlled by CNC systems to 15 KW industrial lasers.  I also have an advanced Amateur Radio operators license (ham).  I think I know a little about electronics.

I first got interested in the idea of OU or free energy shortly after I retired 12 years ago.  I found some early information about John Bedini and saw information about the SSG on the internet.  Because of that I got interested enough to attend the first energy conference in Idaho that I believe you and John and Aaron put on.  I met you and the John and Aaron and Peter there.  I saw you ride your electric powered riding mower into the conference room.  I like you Rick.  I liked you when I met you and I still like you.  But I feel I need to say some things about your presentations.

You keep referring to Don Smith as some kind of OU guru.   For those of us with real electronics training and experience that is a big RED flag.  I have watched several of Don Smith's videos.  He makes many statements that are just not true.  He also uses information from the ARRL handbook for amateur radio operators in a way that is totally wrong.   You can see comments in this thread from others who have seen the same thing.  Claiming Don Smith as some kind of inspiration for your work does not give any credence to your claims.  In fact it casts serious doubts on your claims without even looking further into you claims.

I also as some others have said believe that OU might be possible.  I have seen some things that did make me scratch my head and wonder what was going on.  When John B. and Mathew Jones and I were working on the so called Tesla switch, I for about a week was able to get mine tuned so that it ran a load for the entire week and the batteries voltages stayed the same for that entire time.  I was never able to repeat that.  I just got lucky for a short time I guess.

I want to finish with this bit of advice.  I know from personal experience that using short pulses into a tuned circuit can give some interesting results.  So I think you might possibly have discovered something.  I think the jury is still out on that.   But if you really have something then stop with the long winded posts and give us some real data to look at.  I did watch your videos that A. King posted to OU.com.  You could have easily made them half that long and still said the same things.  Long videos and long posts don't prove claims.  Clear data and accurate measurements prove claims.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 16, 2019, 07:25:35 PM
Hi Itsu,

If you use the UGN3503 type sensor from Allegro, its data sheet says it has a flat response up to 23 kHz. 
You could check its response with a ferrite cored coil having at least some ten mH inductance  what you could drive 
by your function generator slightly below 23 kHz to see how the sensor operates within its specified range. 
To limit current taken from your generator a series resistance surely helps when your coil inductance happens 
to be low around 20 kHz range (to protect the FG).  Place the sensor also close to any of the ends of the ferrite core. 

Gyula

Gyula,

i did test that sensor circuit, but indeed, at the used big coil frequency (180 KHz) there is nothing left to measure.
Even at 20KHz the signal has already dropped significantly compared to 100 to 500Hz range.
A dropoff starts at 1Khz, so usefull for permanent magnets and very low frequency magnetic fields only.

 
Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 16, 2019, 07:26:46 PM

That was rather sloppy of me to miss that was an inductor (which makes a lot more sense).  I just took a very quick look without counting the bands or noticing the L3 printed on the circuit board.  It just looked like a resistor at quick glance - my mistake.   This meter is really odd though.  I can hold it up against - in direct contact with an electronic device and it shows zero reading - no EMF or gauss reading whereas one of my other meters picks up EMF from that same device from at least 2 feet away.   My other meter is screaming (audio output also) when it gets right up against it so in just that one test I assume this Kmoon is either defective or very insensitive. 


If you are just interested mostly in magnetic field readings and have a smart phone most of them have a fairly sensitive magnetic field reading capability.   There are a lot of Apps that will give you microTelsa (also gauss and milligauss) values like this one:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mreprogramming.ultimateemfdetector (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mreprogramming.ultimateemfdetector)



You might want to use a spare phone though in case you get some really strong fields that might damage a phone.


E2matrix,

Thanks for the link to that smartphone app, mine is an Iphone, so this specific one is not available for it, but many others are.

I think i will look for good brand old EMF detector.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 16, 2019, 09:03:49 PM
Steeltpu: Your comments do nothing to advance science. Give me some facts you disagree with. Show me some equations.  Stop quoting other peoples prejudices.  It does not advance reality one bit.  Most people see through whining people. For example the claim that Rick is an illegal and does not pay taxes is demonstrably false. I  recently spoke to Rick in Canada and also in the US.  No one guilty of these false allegations could move between two countries. I check everything and everyone out. I was the first to down Magnacoaster as a fraud by my thread Magnacoaster Genius or fraud or a title to that effect.
So stop posting crap and do some experiments.
I am intrigued that Rick claims to have replicated Don Smith.  I have told the forum where to look for an effect greater than resonance. I understand the process.  We should focus on that.  Does it work or not?
For those who do not know what Tesla's impulse technology is here s a still shot from Video 7 by Bedini (in which Rick was present).


We should be honoured to have some one of Rick's status here. On behalf of the decent members who want to learn I would like to apologize to Rick for Steeltpu's  and other negative people's  posts.
  Rick please do not take your bat home because of people like him.  Just ignore them please and let those of us who want to learn -progress and learn.


If you look at the scope shots you will see that these are similar to other OU devices such as the Alexander motor patent which has the impulses superimposed on the carrier wave.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 16, 2019, 09:20:00 PM
(For those of you who don't care for the drama please note that I end this response with a very important free energy point that you don't want to miss.)

Well, if you consider these people were all my dealers and now my competition that should give you some perspective. Yes, Aaron merely benefitted from my work and all these people conspired against me after I set everything up for them. I created the ideas, functionality, did the testing and sales of the chargers which I allowed these people to be my dealers. Then at some point they, with Bedini, went behind my back and cut me out while still using my company name, label, customer service and testimonies (some of which still appear on Aaron's pages). I created the forums and helped thousands of people around the world. The people asked for kits, no rather then demanded them, and so I did what I could to give them something. They had a very good response to that service. This lead to me to create the conventions, and we had three. 2 in 2010 and one in 2011. The first one had 50 people and the second was an historic even with 400 people. The last one had less than that but was still a major event. In the 2012 Convention they invited me but called me the day before and said there was no room for me and then told everyone that I just didn't show up. But at the same moment they shut me out of all my forums. I did a lot of work for everyone and gave it my all. I got caught up in all the controversies and these guys eventually proved to everyone their bad character. I parted with them as nicely as I could after they stole from me. Remember I was the only one bringing in the money (and so they just wanted to take that from me). I also brought in many people that wanted to do business because of my work. But when John started to make his own battery killer chargers and pushing them on me to sell I had to also get way from that as the first premise of my company is battery longevity. So these guys, and the Bedini worshippers still telling these lies, merely took over my work and tried to slander me to secure their favor with everyone. But I have responded to all their lies for those who have ears to hear. I ask you: What have these guys done since I was making things happen in 2011 and earlier? What have the conventions been showing? I know because people who go tell me everything. Anything practical? What products have come out? What advancements have they revealed in free energy technology? Why did Aaron leave out of the Advanced SSG handbook sold on this forum the advanced technology? Why not include what John said in DVD7 as I just posted? These are the things I did show everyone and stress. But that crossed the line. I am slandered and attacked because of my honest work. Yes I failed some customers at times. I am not really good at business and sales and manufacturing. Some of the things I am blamed for were actually Bedini's fault, many actually. Some things are my fault. Such things happen in business, especially when you are stressed out trying to do too much. I have the weight of the world on my shoulders. Everyone expects me to do everything. But I think people ought to give me some credit for bringing about so many good things over the years. No, rather they would rather push these lies and slander paid for by rich disinfo poeple. These guys demonstrated their own lies to the world now.

For example, Tom Childs says that he witnessed me signing a NDA with Energenx when I first brought him there in late 2008 as evidenced in the time stamp photograph and John Koorn's plane ticket. Yet Gary Bedini claims I signed (there is no signature either) it in early 2007 when I formed Renaissance (it is true that he wanted me to sign an NDA but I never did). Then John claims that it was 2005. But when we were pulling away and moving away from him in 2012 he came over to the shop wanting us all to sign the NDA. My staff will tell you they laughed at him and said "Why would we sign that now after all these years, it would mean nothing and we will not do that." We never signed it. My patent lawyers explained that we co-developed the technology so they were equally my chargers. There was never any contract, NDA or anything all those years. These guys did sloppy business as EVERYONE knows. I talked to Bedini's lawyer for hours and put him in his place. They were all hype as always. Later I met with local companies and very advanced electrical and mechanical engineers who informed me of their similar experience with Bedini's tactics that they experienced 12 years earlier (that was MOR Manufacturing in post falls Idaho fyi). When Bedini took them to court for them pulling out of a deal that he merely sat on doing nothing, they did their homework on him and found a track record of pressuring people through lawyers.

These guys claim that I have illegal status in the US. They say I have pink hair. They say I operate a business without an Idaho business license when I live and work in Michigan and have such a license. They say I don't pay my taxes when I have both accountant and book keeper attending to that. So why doesn't anyone notice these lies and the conflict of interest in their testimony? Why doesn't anyone see that they do nothing to advance this tech in any practical way. They just take my work and try and erase that fact that it was my efforts that made this all happen. Do you really think there would ever have been any chargers if I had not made that happen? Or any kits? Or any meetings? They try to erase all of that. All because they worship Bedini and just side with him in his betrayal of me. Well it was good that it happened because I learned that these are all shady characters. They cheated people and took huge sums of money from people and never gave them anything. They started Energenx with Marvin's 2 million dollars and all he wanted was a free energy device. In the end I was responsible for giving him the relatively small motor. That's what he got for all his money. None of you knew these details but Energenx battled internally with lawyers over a year. I watched it all daily. They eventually settled with the motor I had made. You all see that window motor in popular videos. Steve W made that motor as he made my kits. So I helped resolve this ongoing major problem in their company with one of my kits (a deluxe model of my window B kit). Marvin was conned into this with a carefully worded contract when he started Energenx with the Bedini's. There is a lot more detail that need not be mentioned. But these were all bad people as became evident. What they did with the stock and insider trading is another matter. I really didn't understand or get involved but all the stockholders were always calling me because the bedini's would never answer them. In the end these stockholders were all defrauded and got nothing. One of them, a friend of mine, put in 1/4 million and didn't even get one of the motors that the family all got in the end. Why was that?

So these liars not only make up stuff but are completely ignorant of what was happening from day to day. Tom Childs, Aaron Murakami, and John Koorn and the like were only around every year or every few months while I was there. Yes I only met Aaron probably less than 20 times all those years. They have no ability to make any claim about me or Bedini in these matters.

But now we can all see that John was the big liar as I have shown here on this forum:
https://overunity.com/18241/bedini-window-motor-came-from-newman-how-story-changed/msg535233/#msg535233
John not only lied about me in regards to his oscillator and stan meyer (not hydrogen stan) reverse engineering it but I have proven with his own words that he fabricated the dates on his lab notes. Notice the end of DVD7 talking about the window motor that he lied about later saying was from 1971:
32:00-32:30 "It's been known ever since the Watson, Jim Watson, and the first free energy motors that we did. That when you charge them negative-wise well the normal charger can't fill in the holes. "How long did you work with Watson?' "For over two years before he did the motor. Well, remember that this motor came out of that little book that I did in the beginning, Bedini's Free Energy Generator."

Soon after this admission he even convinced Tony C to publish the lie on the front cover of the second edition of his book which claims that in 1971 (13 years early when he was only 22) John published and copyrighted the window motor book (even though he didn't even believe free energy was even possible until 1984). This is major news and shows everyone that Bedini changed his history to try and make himself look better, to extend the bogus living legend myth, and to try and erase his early support of the Newman motor.

So now Aaron is caught up in this lie. He foolishly attacked me with a funny doctored photo of me with girly baby soother put in my mouth (ironically from the very DVD7 which disproves his point) with a page on his website that showed a bedini lab note with a fake 1980 date on it to somehow try and make me look bad. However, he was so ignorant about the facts of the matter that he didn't realize that the file he shows is actually my digital file that I made when John gave me all of his lab notes to scan in 2006. I go over these details where you can see the actually see the proof I give that these several lab notes have earlier dates added in that contradict Johns unambiguous "too be honest" 1984 admissions on The Open Mind interveiw:

https://youtu.be/KJlcQc8CrRY

So now Aaron is in big trouble because he opened up a can of worms that ruins his reputation forever. He will have to admit that John was a big liar in this matter or he will have to continue on supporting this lie. He has a lot to lose financially in admitting the truth so you can evaluate his character by the fruit of his actions. He had a lot of money to gain from attacking me and siding with Bedini even though I never wronged either of them ever. He has a lot of money to attack people and one wonders what he really is doing here with his disinfo forums. Again, ask yourself why he never put the advanced information in the Advanced SSG manual. The DVD7 tesla impulse teaching that shows you how to ever multiply the output. Who is the only one who ever demonstrated and taught on that all these years??? The very one Aaron and these liars are attacking on those pages.

So yeah I have a credibility problem because of the good work I have done. Others who have done similar things have been killed or attacked in similar ways. Yes I have made mistakes and some people have been lost in the mix of this. But in the end, how much of this can you verify one side or the other? I am presenting real details you can look up for yourself. You can all now see that Bedini lied starting around 2006 about his history in a big way. And if that is the case in such a big matter, then why should he be trusted in his slander against me? And all these minions are just parroting his bitter rage. You see John was just angry with himself in the end.

Anyway, do not get distracted with these controversies. They are expected when such people want to suppress the information. John did share important things like in DVD7, but he did it in a way that was hidden in plain sight. Notice that nobody, even Aaron, noticed how important this point was. And he laughed behind the scenes about how "stupid" everyone in the free energy community was. I recorded him saying such things in the foulest of words in my last conversation with him. He spoke bad about Peter L, Aaron, Tom Childs and the like friends. If I played these recordings these supporters would be very embarrassed and everyone would hate Bedini (as many do who have been equally burned by him). But my goal has been to get past these things and do positive work. I tried to be the mature man in the room and I let these accusations go on for 5 years without responding. But so many people were stumbled by these things and bad Bedini chargers (not the Renaissance Chargers) and the bedini tesla switch, that I had to pinpoint the answers in these matters. I showed everyone in many videos the actual truth. For example, I showed some 8 hours of shop video where you see a completely different understanding of the dynamics at Energenx. You see me building the ferris wheel and John and Gary asking me the questions of what should we do here and there? So see all my saved emails (40,000) showing that I saved everything and disproved the lies.

Anyway, if I was a liar and hateful towards John I would not show you and demystify the good things that he said. So I end this on a positive note. Go pull out that old 2006 DVD7 and then you will be able to go back to that old SSG and now learn its purpose. Now you can get as much output as you want. At some point this should have been the biggest news as it was the most signification thing that John ever claimed and showed. It is a wonder of wonders why these useless forums never noticed when I did draw attention to it for years, especially the last 3 years. Again, I can learn from my enemies and promote their good points. I can even admit that Aaron has promoted some good things as well. Not that the good outweighs the bad, but now he is done for. But I find truth and good from both good and bad people. So here you have a gift that John purposely concealed in plain sight (as he repeatedly jested) to those who he deemed not worthy. Everyone missed this. But now I have articulated it. I have demonstrated it the last 5 years at meetings. And I have explained how to do it while developing the Teslean teaching on the matter. Start with Tesla figure 5 in True Wireless and Impedance phenomena in the 1891-3 three lectures. Then you will be able to make the SSG or any of my kits over the years become a prime mover that can be used to multiply the output as many times as you want. In the critical words of John in DVD7:
"So no matter how many nodes, at the right rate you can keep adding these circuits like Tesla did."
Don't say I didn't spoon feed you the most important matters.
Rick


a.king21,   you're a good researcher.   glad your experience with rick was good and don't want too discourage you but he's got a long history that isn't good.   seems EF forum isn't the only place he's seen as a snake oil salesman:


https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=jranml2m1nnjekn0oi3jgt2453&topic=3785.msg75248;topicseen#msg75248
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 16, 2019, 11:42:17 PM
This is the problem, you miss my context in your drive for OU. You guys just want to jump to the end result. I have been doing this for 15 years full time so I know what I am doing here. My context is that my kit is not to give you an instant big bang OU system in 2 seconds. This is what you all assume is the only thing you find acceptable. My context is to show people how to experience resonance and associated themes so that they can see how the subtle changes can make differences. All of you guys just want to over-simplify things and that is why you will never succeed in this research. I realized that people fail because they assume many things and don't start at the beginning. So I made this kit to teach them the basics, step by step. And they have not be disappointed because for the first time they have experienced and understood resonance. I rightly suspected that most people on these forums only had vague ideas and no real experience with resonance. So the little 20ma LEDs are perfect to see the subtle changes necessary to learn the capacitive and inductive relationships. If you don't learn this first, how do you expect to get what you are after? Now if you do not have OU then what do you really know???????? If not then you have everything to learn. You are not being scientific when you so easily discard minute details. This is not about LEDs being insufficient to prove OU. As I said, you cannot prove anything over the internet with video, claims, or pictures anyway. But this is about learning how things work. Then you can move on to the advanced section of the book, or even chapter 3 on the beginner's side where you will learn about a self-running system in the sympathetic phased locked loop process.

Your statement essentially disregards this because it is not big enough for you. So if one or 1,000,000 LEDs are lit up without input it doesn't matter to you. Well that's your foolishness then. Because if you can have some patience to learn how this actually works then you can do that to any size you need with any loads. I understand that everyone just wants to buy something and really doesn't want to bother with learning anything. Ah I did my studies years ago, and I'm not willing to revisit those subjects. Just give me the product now and shut up Rick. The force of such insults actually compelled me to start giving people kits in the first place. But once I created bigger kits and showed and gave rides on the 26' boat then my whole world turned upside down and everyone turned on me. Eventually I realized that Bedini was not joking with me when he said to not do the kits and never show them anything in the meetings (just tell stories). He really was warning me not to cross that line. Well I paid dearly for doing all that still to this day. So I will never sell directly to the general public any of the Don Smith systems for these reasons. I show people how to do them however. I have shown how the Benitez systems work as well, and I have a few kits almost done along those lines. I have long shown how the Bedini systems work, even though they were not from him actually. So therefore the Newman systems, Adam's systems, Faraday, and others.

Anyway, I don't really care if some of you guys deliberately ignore what I say and ramble and complain about something else. The insults and diversions are more humous to me and illustrate to everyone else the very points I am making.

Again, I repeat, nobody wants to admit that you cannot prove anything over the internet. You keep asking for proof as if you can prove something over the internet. G avoided facing that point and thus has been caught in his game he is playing. This point destroys all the confusion on all these forums. It gets to the heart of the matter. Again, if I drive a boat around for three years in the real world it probably still would not matter for some people. But how do I prove to y'll that I did do that? I can't. So I show pictures? What can pictures prove? So I show video? What can video prove? So I show live feed for three years? That still would not prove anything. Ah, but I tell you how to do it and you do it yourself. Maybe that is the wise approach that I learned to take. Take this statement for what it's worth. Before I made the boat I had two different customers that ordered parts from me and who actually made the window motor as their own motor on their boats which they sailed around the world with. The only source of power, and anyone knows who has done that, that you need to have motors on those boats. I used to get calls from them every 6 months or so asking me to ship them various parts in different locations. Now should you believe that claim? What reason have you to believe it? You see my point. Anyone could get scores of people to say this or that for or against something along with pictures, video, etc. But we live in a world of fakery, from the highest up down to the lowest. The schools are corrupt. The governments. Businesses are greedy and pay for reports to justify their product. These forums are filled with such people as well, seeking to influence everyone in one way or another. My goal here and everywhere is to get you all to think for yourself, think sensibly, logically, honestly. I don't hear anyone else ringing that bell. Oh shut up Rick and just spoon feed us! Shut and prove that which is impossible to prove over the internet. Shut up and hand over the specific part numbers and assembly instructions to billion dollar power plant products. You owe us all that, you do. We did so much for you with our insults! You promote free energy therefore that means you ought to freely give your time, money, parts while we trash your reputation. lol Anyway, I already gave you guys motors, boat rides, fans, lawnmowers, generators, transformers instead of charging batteries, the black box insides. But that was not enough. So we have to start at the beginning and play around with LEDs until everyone gets the first steps. Once you take those first baby steps you will learn that walking and running are just the same thing. The first point/stage in the loving paths teaching is the same as the others in a way. The first Resonance kit is but the same as the full Don Smith systems as well. It's just that you should not start with the big setups as they are extremely dangerous. I really never saw anyone sufficiently warning people against doing that so I made this kit to prevent that.

Hmm lighting leds isn't too difficult a task I had a device on my front door porch light 7 years running off mains transit noise through the night in the end some of the leds died and i got fed up with unsoldering the pcbs to replace them and ran out of that type of blue led. if I wanted fre energy led's i could just copy that circuit with out huge coils like Rick is offering. No disrespect intended. :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 17, 2019, 03:28:41 AM
G,
Just as I have said that you cannot prove or disprove any of these claims over the internet, in the same way we can never really prove people's motives. I guess time will tell if you honestly "believe that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy compared to its input we feed in." There are others here who do not believe that is an honest statement. I do not know you at all or your history. Maybe you can help them change their doubting of your "extraordinary claim which is not proved in practice" of your dealings upon subjects in this forum (as is the counter-claim). You see, the counter-claim has just as much to prove. Both are meaningless claims in this place. How can you prove it one way or another. You refuse to address this point because it completely destroys your method here.

So explain to us:
1. Why you "believe that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy compared to its input we feed in." What reason do you have for "believing that"? Do you mean HOPE? Or do you actually have a scientific foundation/justification and rational conviction for this belief? Belief is an ambiguous word. I won't let you get away with fallacies and diversions my friend. Tell us exactly why or what you mean by these words. Because if they are more than just words, and if there is any substance to them, then we can build upon them. I know many different ways to produce OU, so it's like picking a flavor.
2. Tell us exactly why you think that something like this can be proven over the internet?
3. Tell us exactly why I am wrong for saying that you can't.
4. Tell us exactly if and prove why resonance is only a transformation of voltage/amperage and is only an accumulation matter rather than an actual gain.

How can you say "So far your setup in question does not seem to produce any extra output." Why do you say that? What "does not seem"? Not enough lights? Not bright enough? How can you judge that from some pictures? How could one say it does seem enough when all you have is pictures and statements from me? If I had big resistor bulbs, like my 750W ones at full brightness, would that "seem" enough? How could you tell if the brightness was full? Would the light meter reading be enough to convince you through a picture? If I had 18 people come on here and say what they saw should that be enough to warrant a rational conclusion on the subject? Now if you are just judging from the picture superficially as people do on these groups all day long, then I think everyone else would say if the picture was true it would "seem" to be producing more than 0.75W or 1W worth of output, especially when it is evident to everyone, including Itzu that you could add many layers of additional coils above and below those shown. This is where we all bring our actual experience into such matters which therefore do not require proving (important point). So from what you can see, how much would it take to produce what is shown? If you are going by my claim that I also have another bulb below (as you will see in a video I am uploading now) and when I added several more coils and ferrite rod/coil with more bulbs that brought the input down to 60ma or 0.72W. So we have 3/4W to work with divided by 15 3W bulbs at some brightness and 75 red LEDs at less brightness. Now I can push the red LEDs to 40ma and that was why they are perfect for this kit. They are not being pushed that hard, but from the picture you could suppose they are combined somewhere between 1 and 3W. And the bigger bulbs while not 3W, it would "seem" from the picture that they would be at least 0.5W each. That's how it seems. But these would have to be significantly lower. I'm playing this game here with you even though no one can prove anything with a picture over the internet. So you would not only have to divide the 75 bulbs into that 3/4W of power input, but also the 15 bright bulbs. Oh and also the losses in the gate driver. You are only wanting to consider the bright bulbs so even doing that would be less than 50mw each! And if we only considered the red LEDs without the bright white ones we could only allow them to have 0.01w each. So they would have to be much less than that when we consider the bigger bulbs. So from the picture it seems like your seems is unjustified. But then again, this is all a game when no picture should be believed anyway.

As for my attendee's you misunderstand. These guys asked me to come back down there from last year, and some of them have been to 5 of my meetings already. They all have the kit and can do their own measurements with their own meters. They are very good students with wide rages of professional background in engineering and physics beyond college level. This was not a lets-go-see-if-free-energy-is-possible meeting. These meetings are about engineering this technology. This was the least important demonstration as I never had time to set it up (and never even ran it in the first meeting with other guys). I'm not looking for verification or to prove OU. That old news. The search is long over G. You are 100 years too late for that. lol It's not about whether these things are possible, but what is the easiest way to do these things. So I showed many different flavors. And I show the very subtle details that make all the difference. For example, if you don't appreciate the output of a high frequency Don Smith kind of system you may just only get the output at 1 CPS and miss out on the fact that you could actually pump the same out at 26khz (which was a major point in my demonstrations when I showed how I could have about 30 identical outputs in themselves not much when I only use the energy at 1 cps. But having 30 together I am already way over the 8W input. But now multiply that by 26,000 CPS and suddenly everyone realized a major point everyone misses in these replications on these forums. Now I have 30x 26,000 times that which people think they could have because they don't know what they are doing or how the energy works. So a small system which people try and replicate seems unimpressive at first. But when you listen to what Don says, and actually do it, you will see he knew what he was talking about. So that was far more important that this LED setup. And so was the impedance demonstration with motor that had many outputs which also sent back more and more energy into the input with each added load in series with the charging battery. And then there ware demonstrations with the Don Smith Effect. Small demonstrations with major implications. Then there was the synchronous condenser... Anyway, the guys were well aware of what this kit can do and can properly judge the bulbs that they also own. Now if these guys found the kit to be useless or not showing anything, do you think they would have invited me back or come many times? Maybe you would find them complaining on these forums that the kit or the meeting was not worth it.

As for the last part of you posting here. You evade my whole point that I am repeating over and over. My point if you bother to listen, is that you cannot prove any claim over the internet with pictures, words, or video. So you are trying to evaluate things from my picture, or Itzu's pictures, etc., and I am asking why would either mean anything? What can you rationally deduce from either of us? How can you ensure accuracy or honesty? So I took you up on your baseless methodology, which is the practice of these forums, and merely told you the measurement. Now that didn't meet your requirement, why? Because another picture was not shown doing that? This was done on purpose so I could draw this out of you. See again how you assume that a picture or video can prove or disprove something. I gave you a testimony and you said that was not good enough. But why would a picture be any different? So on the basis that you do not require proper evidence that is needed for rational conviction I decided to take you up on it and give you such. So I actually fulfilled the same conditions that you have concluded in the same way on both my pictures and Itzu's testimony. I know you don't want to admit this because then your work on this forum is mostly over. This takes away all your expert analysis of so many claims here. Because you cannot prove or disprove anything here. You can only, if that was what I think it is then therefore... And as anyone with any experience in troubleshooting knows, that is a waste of time. You are much better off going to meetings in the real world and spending time with real people who really are doing something. These forums are so 90s didn't you know? The real action is in the real world. People don't waste their time here anymore. I keep telling one guy to stop trying to help these people on these forums because they just have glazed over eyes and have created a fantasy existences in cyberland.

So again, how can "The measurements made by Itsu are clearly shown and report a COP of 0.3"? Based upon what? Are you there with him? How do you know you are seeing everything? What if many more coils were added as was my point after all? This whole thing from you is hilarious! Then you say it is a difference from me, but we are not even talking about the same parts. Did he have all my coils? 2% of my coils? I mean really?? What LED did he check? Was he that guy that slipped into the meeting and put the light meter on the bulb or something? You are trying to compare two different things that you cannot verify at all? Again the assumption that proof is in a picture or claim. And the claim only seems reasonable or believable to you when it disproves OU to you. This shows you are prejudiced towards disbelieving OU claims. But you should not be prejudiced either way. You should do your own work and prove things to yourself and not fool other people here that you know what you are doing or that something can be proven with pictures or videos, or words over the internet. Your game is up now G. It's over. Find real world people to work with.

So what would be complying with your requests? Showing you more pictures? Showing a video? I have played that game 13-15 years ago and I won the debates--all of them. The skeptics ended up conceding and believing or changed the game to insist upon 3 times the output as 2 times was not enough the insisted. So I did that as well. Now I've increased that to infinite output. lol
I've had to think it through because I found that no matter what you do some people would always have an explanation. One physics prof friend of mine oversees was like that. He said he was open but he was just refuse to admit what he physically saw. Then would come out of his mouth some physics non-sense to the effect that air flight was impossible for humans while we got in the airplane and cruised around. "It's mathematically impossible, and such and such expert has shown that …"

And this is what you end up resorting to in the end. You take my picture for grated. You concluded from that "sorry" "it seems" not enough. Yet you conclude from other pictures of someone else with other parts that such is believable. Then you ask me to measure the bulbs and I tell you an answer. But suddenly the refusal comes in when it is something you do not want to admit. Suddenly the rules have changed. Suddenly a claim is not good enough. A picture is to be believed when it supports our desired outcome, but not when it contradicts it. THAT IS CONFIRMATION BIAS. But that is true for everyone who believes or disbelieves a claim based upon all this coming through the internet.

But if that is not enough, you then resort to the classic popularity fallacy and say since your limited knowledge of people reveals that some people claim to not be able to do such things then it is not possible. So you set yourself up for the biggest fall in this last paragraph. What labs across the globe? Are you part of Total Information Awareness and know all the labs across the globe? I bet you know of no labs that I know of doing this work? What labs doing what? College level labs where they teach you this is impossible? My friend, once you get out into the real world you will actually find many labs working with this stuff. And I am not talking about all the secret government labs working on weapons systems. I have met enough of those guys and their dark programs. They laugh at that kind of juvenile statement of yours. You have to be totally ignorant of things to say such. I'm assuming that in the massive body of information on this forum there would be quotations to numerous reports from labs over the last 130 years along these lines. I have books with hundreds of references to published journals. I have thousands of patents from US and other first world countries showing these OU processes (but only a few of them for specific power generation stating OU). Start with Barrett who will bring you back to Tesla. You may not understand his math, I don't know.
Anyway, this is like a pre-teen saying, well if it was true the whole school would be talking about it on social media! Sorry, I don't believe it until enough select people, the cool kids, believe it first.
But would that not contradict your first statement that you do believe OU or the like is possible? Maybe that was just that you believe Solar or wind OU is possible and you are just playing word games with us. Either way, you're contradicted my friend. The game is up!

So you throw around the you need to prove this and that. Why do I need to prove anything? People need to prove to themselves not have others try and prove something to them. I do not need anyone to believe anything thank you. I offer services for people who ask. They ask for parts, and many times for seconds. I do what people ask for. Very few have complained out of tens of thousands of people over the last 15 years.

As for some labs that are trying to figure this out, the problem is they assume that only one coil is to be a receiver coil. And as I said, if you are going to do one secondary, then you do it as Don did with the secondary inside the primary or vice versa. Loosely coupled, not tightly. And 1/4 wave. But then you could still have multiple coils around these in all directions. You could even modify a radar system that way and still use the radar while collecting all the energy a second way. This I sometimes demonstrate or explain.
If you look at these mainstream labs, they are not trying to get OU but are merely developing products for a two coil system. They are encrypted energy transfer so there isn't a possibility of adding a second coil receiver. It is therefore a totally different system. So the MIT 2007 example only shows one coil when many more could be added. But they deceive you in the wikipedea article that all the power was transferred into the receiver coil at 40% efficiency or something. That is not how it works, and adding more coils on the other sides would have doubled and tripled the total output. Deliberately misleading the public. What was so special about that anyway. It was 120 year old news.
Your claim about labs not being able to do this is foolishness. Did you visit these guys and talk to them privately? I happen to talk to such people all over the world. Yes some labs have people that are stuck at a college level of basic understanding. But anyone working with a nonlinear reactive application sees all these things. There is a lot of existing technology over the last 100 years that defies your claim here. So I say, says who? Who are you G? Where have you been? Who have you talked to? Have you met someone in person? Like I said, when you get into the real world it is actually scary to see what is being done. What the general public knows is about 30 years behind. I don't even want to know the dark stuff. I refuse to get involved with any weapons people or other dark systems. But all these guys laugh at your types and junior claims. I have demonstrated to some of these special programs people and they are fully aware. But never mind that, just look around more and get out and talk to these guys in these so-called labs and you will find they will admit these things away from their employers. When the retire then the dive into these things on their own time. You just don't get how the mainstream is controlling the masses as peasants. But if you want to be a power company then you can use these processes. Or if you want to use it for non-power generation then you can get a patent. So for those skilled in the art you can just flip the application an you get your OU.

You are vague about what exact problem there is to solve. I gave you the point about whether Resonance is a gain or merely a transformer or accumulation problem. This will probably will not answer because it commits you to something you may not want people to know about. If you say yes then my kit follows. If no, then you are merely here to disprove all claims no matter what is revealed. So what is it with you? And what problem is there to solve? If resonance is not a gain then what problem is there to solve? No problem as we are only then dealing with losses. If no, then why bring this up as if it is a problem? Problem for who?

You specify losses energy transfer, well that is not what I am talking about at all. You did not listen to me. I said that the receiver coils are not actually getting an actual transfer of energy as you suppose. If that was the case then naturally there could be no gain because it is entirely transferred (with losses at the square of the distance) to the receiver coil. Here is how to disprove that wrong thinking instantly. If I have a secondary inside of the primary then all the radiation would be totally absorbed in the secondary. Is that not so? This you find more or less with a magnetic core transformer. That is entirely different than a resonance loosely coupled Tesla/D'arsonval/Odin coil. So the secondary gets all the goods, but then you can still have many other coils being influenced by the same radiation. This shows the energy is amplified/multiplied. I haven't added that to the kit yet because it crosses a line and makes an actual Don Smith setup. And the secondary in that case, even without 1/4 wave, will supposedly transfer 100%. So then how is anything left over for other coils be affected? I say affected because this shows you right away that the effect in the receiver coils is not an absorption but an influence like a trigger. The electrons are not transferred over and consumed, the action at a distance is merely an influence for itself in it's own local environment (even that close up). Therefore the radiation trigger signal--so to speak--is not a transfer of energy but the radiation can continue on to affect other coils more or less deflected depending... So the secondary can receive all of the radiation and other secondaries more distant as well, which will be affected according to the angle/square of the distance. Without realizing that you will be looking at this all wrong. You will think that I cannot add more layers to my setup without diminishing the output of the other loads or increasing the power input. But everyone knows this about my kit and saw that at the meeting that we actually decrease the input as we added more while the lights stayed the same or in some cases got brighter. In some arrangements we can increase the input as well, or dim the lights, when we detune the system out of resonance. So hopefully this corrects you mistakes if you sincerely didn't know that. See people, all it takes is to be mistaken on 10 to 20 things and you are locked into disbelieving even what you see. If all energy is transferred from the transmitter to the receiver(s) then naturally there could be no gain and only losses. So what would be the point in even trying these experiments? For you can't even disprove such a claim anyone on a forum. Now if you think that while the energy can be transferred that somehow the receiver can do something else to get an added gain, then that is saying just the opposite thing. These are usually mutually exclusive ideas. Those who believe in any OU gain do not usually believe that energy is actually be transferred from transmitter to receiver. So I would like you G to tell us exactly what you believe in this case. Even electron theory does not support that. However, I do not base anything on electron theory anyway.

So I have answered all the points in great detail. We will see if G wants to respond to the very specific questions. His answers will bring clarity to everything he has said on this forum so far. It will be hard to admit the answers I can see. So far we have his complete evasion of the main question about why any pro or con claim should be believed through internet only revelation. If he says yes you can believe something, as has been is assumed practice, then it reveals his adopting a needless bias towards a desired outcome. And in that case there is no more value in his words than in the most ignorant rants on the internet. If he says with me that you cannot prove or disprove anything through the internet pictures, videos, or words, then I have to ask why has he contradicted that so far? And I have to ask how can he prove this to be valid or right or rational to do (especially in our day of fakery and advanced technology)? To answer yes is to be credulous. To answer yes and believe a disproof claim is both credulous and incredulous at the same time. And this is where the skeptic is both willfully gullible and unreasonably disbelieving. Believing a counter claim of disproof without sufficient reason is also choosing to disbelieve the disputed claim without being able to actually or fairly evaluate it. Again, it is not as though people are either gullible or closeminded skeptics. They are both, always, at the same time. And the truth is not in the middle between these two, because they are equally the same and belong together. They are opposite to honesty that only settles with rational conviction. Truths of demonstration need to be demonstrated. Truths of intuition just need to be beheld and they are self-evident. But to confuse the two and deceive oneself into thinking that truths of demonstration are self-evident is a critical mistake. And that is what is happening here. People are making a matter that needs demonstration to be a matter of opinion or they judge it by their internal standard of what is self-consistent (like self-evident) with their belief system. In that case a point that needs demonstration is believed or rejected based upon what they believe is possible or not and demonstration goes out the window as not necessary. There are various levels of knowledge and certainty and we need be clear on such matters or there is no science at all.

So tell us G? Let us know. Prove to us that you want to help us. Don't leave us in the dark about these fundamental positions. Tells us where you stand on what can be proven over the internet and this forum? Tell us exactly if you think there is or can be any gain with resonance. I have given a lot of time as this is an experiment for me to see what you will do.

Rick,

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?

If you go back and read what you wrote yesterday, please show me where is the 'measurement' word or any expression relevant in that part of your text from which I or anyone else should deduce you were writing about measurements.  This is what you wrote yesterday: 

The measurements made by Itsu are clearly shown and report a COP of 0.3 or so if I recall correctly. This is a huge difference versus your hints.  He checked LED brightness by feeding in known DC power, etc. 

You did not comply with my requests on correct measurements. 

You hint at not less than you have achieved lossless energy transfer between magnetically coupled resonant LC circuits.  The labs all over the world seek for doing that but they have not managed to solve that problem. You need to prove such energy transfer with correct measurements.  Otherwise, only those people who do  not have as much area ofexpertise as you will believe they have a COP>1 setup. 
If you disagree with this, then prove me wrong.   

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 17, 2019, 07:56:02 AM
Gyula:  WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!!


Ha ha ha ha


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoOWs8SfVo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Frederik2k1 on June 17, 2019, 11:25:19 AM
G,
Just as I have said that you cannot prove or disprove any of these claims over the internet, in the same way we can never really prove people's motives. I guess time will tell if you honestly "believe that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy compared to its input we feed in." There are others here who do not believe that is an honest statement. I do not know you at all or your history. Maybe you can help them change their doubting of your "extraordinary claim which is not proved in practice" of your dealings upon subjects in this forum (as is the counter-claim). You see, the counter-claim has just as much to prove. Both are meaningless claims in this place. How can you prove it one way or another. You refuse to address this point because it completely destroys your method here.


Dear Rick,

The assertion and the counter-assertion are both useless, as long as there is no possibility at all to carry out any proof here.
In order to accomplish this, a factual analysis of the basic effect must first be generated, where a hypothesis is given about the properties and origin of the effect. Subsequently, the hypothesis is confirmed by the presentation of an experiment, either in theoretical nature or as a practical implementation. Then others can jump on this bandwagon and perform the experiments themselves to confirm or disprove the claim/hypothesis. This is simply a typical scientific approach.

I respect your work and the many hours you put into this project. But what is really missing between the many words you write here is a factual concise discussion of the physical conditions and the assumption of how the overunity effect arises. Also missing is the circuit diagram of a circuit that produces this effect. Why don't you just provide it? This would be valuable because then the discussion goes to a factual level. With the circuits that users Itsu have tried so far, the effect could not be proven. This only leads to the conclusion that they do not correspond to what you are using or that the experiment was not performed the way you are doing it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on June 17, 2019, 12:36:13 PM
Hi Rick.
I'd like to thank you. In the last 15 months I followed all your videos and ordered Dons Book and also the Resonance kit. Struggled a long time with all the amazing informations (because of my lack of english language), but after some weeks I had the first success!!
No doubt anymore. It is all real and I can see it clearly directly on my table. 15 years of hope and failures again and again..and now success! I am very happy. Hope to overcome the next step and get a working Don device. Best regards..Markus
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on June 17, 2019, 01:09:32 PM
Dear Rick,

The assertion and the counter-assertion are both useless, as long as there is no possibility at all to carry out any proof here.
In order to accomplish this, a factual analysis of the basic effect must first be generated, where a hypothesis is given about the properties and origin of the effect. Subsequently, the hypothesis is confirmed by the presentation of an experiment, either in theoretical nature or as a practical implementation. Then others can jump on this bandwagon and perform the experiments themselves to confirm or disprove the claim/hypothesis. This is simply a typical scientific approach.

I respect your work and the many hours you put into this project. But what is really missing between the many words you write here is a factual concise discussion of the physical conditions and the assumption of how the overunity effect arises. Also missing is the circuit diagram of a circuit that produces this effect. Why don't you just provide it? This would be valuable because then the discussion goes to a factual level. With the circuits that users Itsu have tried so far, the effect could not be proven. This only leads to the conclusion that they do not correspond to what you are using or that the experiment was not performed the way you are doing it.

Hello !  :) I have the schematics.  There are around (at least ) 50 different setup shematics that you will come to as following the several experiments the kit will drive you through. I paid 100 usd for them and I have already stated HOW GRATEFUL I am to Rick for the golden experiments packed inside. He knows that, as I'm sometimes asking him questions which he has ALWAYS taken the time to answer. So you see, what' s really missing is YOU helping him. Now if you read carefully the figures Rick is listing you will be able to start this research with a physical exercise...I have , at the beginning during this thread, mentionned the Resonant induction coupler kit with a few indications that allow one not having bought the kit to discover the effect. This is why I ws able to "rebuild from chinese cables and caps" several other competitor kits to Rick, and all demonstrated how to light a 3.8 V with an input between 0.78 and 2.2 V. , therefore indicating to me I have understood at least the first few methods Rick is teaching us. Notice the word : teaching. So yes, I have replicated the kit with several inductors and capacitors. I have at least 4 or 5 concurrent versions that work, of which one better than the kit ! (ie LED brighter with lesser input). And including one that never works with my FG (2000V 47 uF caps if I recall) topping at 60mhz. I guess the inductance doesn't "cross" capacitance at that frequency...(have to try more ?), to use such terminology.
WHEN I ASKED ITSU WHY HE WOULD NEVER LIGHT HIS SMALL LED AT 1,2 MHZ AT 2 V BUT THAT IT WOULD BE LIGHTED UP BRIGTHLY AT 1.25 MHZ WHEN I TRIED TO EXPLAIN HIM THIS IS THE VOLTAGE MULTIPLICATION EFFECT IN RESONANCE, MY QUESTION REMAINS STILL ...RESPONSELESS (including by "mr smart" Gyula). Too bad : I have offered here even without the consent of Rick, but in the total sharing of the spirit of his work to help the world, the object of a first exercise in his kit that many if not all of you are incapable of analyzing properly !. I am no EE, and do not even know the difference between AC and a frequency generator at 60 HZ ! So guys, before tauntering others like I saw so many times (too many...), just be humble and GO TO THE BENCH ON YOUR OWN !
Final word also for a few posts (they will recognize themselves) about Rick too long, too this, too mmh what is worth your contribution blah blah... To each of them : Before having the audacious yet lost approach to ask Rick what he has done, I ask you the question : have you done the millionth of what he did for free in free energy ? Yes ? Spell your name, that I may run a google-compare with Your name !
To this other guy out tbere telling Rick he has gone farther than him in this research : if you have done better and are interjecting about this right now in this forum it is the proof you have never shared anything in comparison to Rick. Which amounts a massive underuniy system ! Zero sharing ie zero value ie zero gift (to me they are the same thing). Continue the same stuff : you will be able to take it with you to a much more useful place !...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on June 17, 2019, 01:23:49 PM
Gyula:  WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!!


Ha ha ha ha


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoOWs8SfVo

Always laughing at your posts, aking  ;D ;D. I have opened round  :o eyes reading a catalogue of mediocre posts in my absence, even after we opened this fantastic subject of resonance that Rick introduced. I'm telling you : there is no chance that resonance will fade out of this thread...I have sorrow for You and Rick when I saw some posts where some guys, coming out of nowhere, bring intricacies, judjmental attitudes...definitely not a place giving the taste to share anything of value here, how unfortunate as this is the exact contrary of this forum's creator intention I believe...if that would be only them I would let them return milk their cows and walk in the dirt...However I am a Christian so I don't fear the powers of darknesses l in this world...as we are Soldiers of Light, we will continue to bring the good news... whenever they arrive on our bench.
SCIENCE IS INTUITION.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on June 17, 2019, 01:55:26 PM
Related to #561 :
https://www.google.com/search?q=duty+cycle+and+frequency+divider&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
Amplification or dividing from tension/Voltage  - Amperage/current - Frequency/pulses - duty cycle/ signal

Each coil has its Eigen-Frequenz/Spin :  stimulating ,cw or ccw  !?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 17, 2019, 04:45:12 PM
Rick,

I do not participate in your game you are playing here. You try to create a situation which would make it impossible
for the forum members to ascertain what is the truth on the COP of your setup. And you try to ridicule any member 
here who dare to ask about the real performance of your setup. 
Of course you did neglect my point from my Reply #568 when I wrote you had not written measured results in your
text but a conditional question ("would 0.5W on the bulbs be acceptable to me on these bigger bulbs"?). 
And then on the following day you already referred to your own conditional question as a fact that you had already
answered my measurement request, as if you had already stated the 0.5W as measured.  Yes, 0.5W for 8 bulbs would be
very good for you  because 4W is already gives COP>1  BUT what if the brightness
involved is less than 0.5W for each bigger bulb? If you do not measure it at each bulbs, then you simply do not know. 

You wrote this on gain for your setup:

"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)."

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=VxIxcos(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 diodebridges can be easily estimated.

Of course any setup shown in a video can be faked, this can be true. How about to minimize this possibility?

How about rectifying the output of all the 8 (or your choice) bigger receiver units (omit the LED bulbs from their output)
and collect the 8 (or any you choose) DC outputs into a common puffer capacitor of say 10 milliF or more as desired? 
Then this DC voltage could feed your gate driver IC and also a low power square wave generator to drive the input
of the gate driver. The 8 (or more) receiver units should be able to maintain the charge level in the puffer capacitor the
gate driver IC and the square wave generator is consuming because you hinted at a COP of at least over 10. 
(Based on your text: "So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input.")   

This claimed COP value would surely serve the use of a DC/DC converter to have a stable DC supply available from its output to fully replace your regulated power supply.  Even one single 3W LED bulb could be run off one of the bigger
receiver coils separately to show certain brightness.  The input of this converter would receive energy from
the big puffer capacitor, closing the loop. This is what I suggested to RomeroUK years ago and he then showed a video
in which he carried his running mot-gen setup looped via a DC/DC converter with himself while walking...   

I wonder whether you are going to consider my looping suggestion or write about again my scepticism or about
bent scepticism  :) . You can say a self running setup can also be faked and this is true but if you show a certain
start-up procedure we could agree on in advance, openly on this forum, then faking could be minimized at least.

I would kindly suggest building this self running setup for members a.king and benfr because they have the original coils set. 


Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on June 17, 2019, 05:04:18 PM
Rick
Within plenty of your long videos ,which  one is the best to watch to understand concept ? English is not my native language and watching few 1hour long videos is too much for me
Can you explain how you move the phase angle between voltage and current in output resonant circuit to get output power independent of input resonance ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Thaelin on June 17, 2019, 06:00:12 PM
  Hi all:
    I have to chime in here as I was one of them in attendance. I went to Lodi, Ca for his two day work shop. I went to see one thing and found another as well. I sat there in disbelief as he added more and more output coils drawing a load and the input stayed the same. Just the output wattage was going up.
    What is in the book is what was setup. He had to stop adding more output coils due to not wanting to blow the scope used for the readings.


Not much more I can say. No video, no pictures other than the ones I took, just live right in front of all of us.


thay

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 17, 2019, 06:22:23 PM
Yes I entirely agree Mr. Frederik. But as you can see my points are foundational and almost everyone is wrong about them. So until they are agreed to then people will just be making assumptions one way or another without sufficient reason. This leads to deceptions wasted time, money, and faith. I spend a lot of time picking up the pieces of countless people wrongly harmed by these practices on these groups. So while you all want OU and want to brush past these foundational points I say to you that you will never get anywhere while you practice the bias/prejudice principle which will lead you to premature conclusions.

I have provided a tool for people to experiment with in the kit. I am not open sourcing this kit freely on this forum. I have shared a lot in so many ways over the years, but I do have to earn a living. Anyway, it is opensourced in the way that people can play order it and learn many things from it. As I said, I have explained the points, and even given videos, and people can make their own systems. No, they can't judge my systems without having my systems.

As for the specifics, you have to start with the other foundation point in my questions about resonance. Can resonance be a gain in a series or parallel tank circuit (where the voltage or amperage is multiplied or amplified) in the context of the systems we are focusing on here (that is where we are tapping into the environmental effects produced by the amplified oscillations in the tank)? If you don't bother to benefit or extract that oscillatory energy gain from the tank then I can see where you think it is nothing real and it is merely apparent gain. And I guess that is the point that people need to experience. But my fundamental question is whether resonance is merely a transformer effect or accumulation effect as people imply or state when they disbelieve OU possibilities. This is perhaps the most important question for this entire forum don't you think? I would be surprised if it has not been brought up already. Establishing one way or the other will help people settle the question about these kinds of systems and claims. For if it is merely a transformer or accumulation process then where would any gain come from? And this is exactly how people think. So I am trying to bring out the real issues here. It is not about any data or facts actually, all of which cannot be proven to be real over the internet. It is about whether people know one way or the other the answer to this question. The example claims from Tesla are illustrative where he said he was able to have a large 2" steel bar become so resonantly triggered with mere drops of water at it's resonant frequency until it vibrated so violently that it broke in two. Or that he had a small pocket vibrator placed on a 10 story building frame that soon brought the whole structure into violent shaking threatening to destroy it all like the 2" wide steel bar. Where these merely accumulations of energy building up so that all resulting action was merely additive of input energy given? 1 to 1? Or did a small input at the natural frequency trigger a huge result? This everyone needs to experience. But if resonance is merely a transformer or accumulatory action then Tesla himself was fundamentally deceived and a deceiver in his core teachings. Anyway, this is the context of any such experiments. Any numbers thrown around are pointless unless you build a proper foundation.

The problem is that you will never get most people to commit to building upon an honest foundation. Those wanting free energy are so desperate to get it that most really don't care about such things. And unfortunately they then can engage in bias and over-believe claims or the own results. On the other hand, those wishing to disprove OU claims and concepts for whatever reasons, while many times appearing to be professional and sound, nevertheless contradict themselves and deviate from these points I am making.

So what I am doing here is setting up standards and protocols so as to make it easy for everyone to spot and disregard frequent fallacies. And it is far more important to me for everyone to have a sound foundation and methodology than whether anyone on this forum gets free energy. For this also affects everything else in your life. What you go into something with is what you come out with.

As for what goes in between, I suggest you read all of what I have even shared over the last few days. I have also drawn attention to specific things of that nature in relation to what I have shared about DVD7 and about this resonance process. But again, you may not like the fact that I am teaching from a themes approach rather than urging people to look to some set of parts for their salvation. You guys on the groups are messed up. You think that if you give people some parts and tell them to do something with them that hopefully they can come up with some result as if they have not assumptions. I have witnessed countless electrical engineers automatically dampen out the critical phenomena appearing in a system because of their assumptions and experience only to then claim "see there is nothing special here!" They don't even realize what they are doing. It's like the blindfolded man touching different parts of the elephant and concluding different things about what he is touching. What you go into with is what you come out with. But understand the key themes and then you can make most any parts work for you. I don't see you appreciating that point I have been making. What you suggest is too mechanical and it just hasn't worked over all these years. I started out with such assumptions and realized after witnessing the effects of that approach for many years that unless people know where to begin and get a feel for the themes and ends sought after, they will wrongly interpret their results. They will actually think they are getting bad results when they actually are demonstrating something else. For example, people negatively charged their batteries and many people assumed their batteries were ruined because when they later tried to recharge them (after being discharged) the conventional charger would not charge them up as before. If they kept it there long enough it would eventually charge them and convert the battery back to positive. But because they didn't know that the not only were mistaken about this result but missed a huge opportunity to benefit from an actual good result they were unaware of. And that was because of lack of information or ignoring details in the mad rush for free energy. So if you post some numbers and parts the same sort of thing happens. Then you get people mixing in their assumptions and there is no benefit in the end.

As for the factual level, I have found it far more persuasive to show existing technology people have had in their homes over the last 100 years. Starting with the many patents and also signaling out real commercial products that actually use these processes. So you separate the final purpose of the actual product and focus in on one or more unique processes that show the point. This is a hobby of mine which I get into more or less in my meetings. The patents are an excellent way to start and illustrate that approach, while real-life examples of existing products drives the points home. I find that there is little point to try and create something new when we have so much to work with already. In our case here were are looking at a transmitter and receiver in which there are countless examples over the last 100 years. Again, as I have repeatedly stated, you can take these products and continue to use them as they were intended, and you tap energy from them in another way that people have ignored as part of the losses. For example, I tap a plasma column that is for the creation of appealing light that only draws 8W continuous. I still run it as intended and without making it change at all. It still does exactly the same thing. But now I use it as an energy pump and power other loads (like what I did with the motors charging batteries for free). This is a dipole and I can collect a lot of energy from this as Don Smith showed in one of his patents. But coming back to my previous point, if I assume various things I will get almost nothing out of it (as most people experience). So I have to teach by the themes approach to get them to look beyond the specific parts and understand the idea to be realized first so then you use the parts as tools for a specific end in a specific context. The mainstream college level person will not be able to even agree to the themes presented, and would never be able to follow the instructions to make it do anything special because they have been so rooted in bias and so full of assumptions and pressures to conclude prematurely that it doesn't matter what you tell them to do or even show them. They would be in a state of cognitive dissonance and just block it out with the result that they would then conclude that the opposite is proven. They have been deeply manipulated for their entire lives and are as much brainwashed as the victims of the craziest cult you could think of. It is very powerful. You say, no way, if you demonstrated something they would surely concede to the results. Haha, I have seen one case where a 60 year old man in Germany, I believe a respected scientist, throw a fit and run out of the meeting like a 2 year old brat after we demonstrated some things. But here I am not talking so much of demonstrating things but of giving people instructions as you request. Believe me, they will find a way to kill all the unique effects no matter how much you tell them. They will make an open system closed. They will measure only the constant current and disregard the impulse energy (that is, they will measure after the switch is turned on and before the switch is turned off). They will dampen the resonance. They will make two bodies into one and tie the grounds together. They will disregard the reactive and focus only on the resistive. And the fact that they have so much existing technology and cannot recognize how to tap more energy off of what they have shows their limitations. After years of helping such people I have seen a better way. It is like good old repentance. You can argue matters back and forth and try to convince someone of a matter but you can never force someone to admit something (however I have figured out to force someone to admit it to themselves even if they don't admit it externally). But if they get humbled and find God then they can become a new creation and then you find them all open and reasonable. So in this area something like that needs to happen. Usually you have establish a credibility thing with them where you play their game of authorities. They have to come to the place where they are actually willing to consider things opposite to their assumptions. But since they have been trained only to gratify their assumptions it is almost impossible to help them out of the cult that has gripped their soul.

There are many examples to look at and consider specifically. First thing to ask however, are there common products that are not capturing and using a lot of potential energy while we use them for another purpose. Come to grips with that question first. For example, impulse motors? Take my fan kit video. I take billions of fans in computers or larger that produce a given CFM for a given amount of energy input. Are these fans state of the art? Are they not as efficient as they can be? What if I move around one diode (and add in a second diode because there are two transistors) and now charge a load like a second battery while I have the same cfms and same input? What does that tell you about the mainstream world? I have been showing this for about 14 years now to tens of thousands of people and still it is not changed mainstream beliefs. They don't want people to realize what that implies. They do not want people to get any electrical benefit from what they only want people to have in a motor. So it is believed that all of the energy is being used to power the magnetic action. Yet we can have equal electrical output from this process.
Examples:
1. Free electrical output that ignored in motors.
2. Free electrical output from all types of dipoles, anything from magnetostriction rods like radar or sonar to plasma columns.
3. Ignored inductor fluxing from resonance tank circuits.
4. Ignored capacitive fluxing benefits from resonance tank circuits in making the capacitor a water cell (Stan M)(key is to condition cell into a capacitor). Combined with points 2 and 3 allows for a very high output OU system.
The list goes on and on. If you have ears to hear and eyes to see you can now go off with the parts you have at home to prove these things out to yourself. The diagrams are all over this forum for years. The problem isn't missing diagrams or in lacking ideal parts, but is with the bias principle and that this forum is completely lacking in any foundation. I told Stefan years ago that you need to make these lists completely different. You start with working systems and work the other way, rather than start with all these well-maybe-there-is-something-here approach where then everyone jumps in with their opinions and sloppy ideas. There is no sense that people have the themes rightly understood. So if you did this right there would be no way trolls and disinfo people could prevail. This is why I see these forums as worse than useless as people are purposely cycled and spit out as overwhelmed and confused.

Anyway, as I read you I still think you are too focused on an over-simplistic parts approach to this problem. I have given enough details for people to do that if they want, but I know exactly what will result if I play that game. My goal here is for you to all overcome your bias, I care little if people have free energy. This is only of small importance to your entire life. Maybe you will accidentally stumble upon a result with a given set of results and then you will hold those parts as almost a sacred deity. Woe to you if it is ever stolen or goes out of tune because you don't understand why or how it works to be able to replicate it again. That is not an exaggeration. But what if you understand that themes and can then use thousands of parts to make the goods happen? This is what I teach now. This is exactly what Don said. This is what he did with the nonlinear simulation software and designed all of his models with and which required very little adjustment when made in the real world. Yes this is all mathematically predictable. So while college level teaching prejudices you to think these gains are impossible, with a slight of hand they contradict themselves in allowing students to work with the software that shows overenergy flows in circuit relationships (but only as a negative thing to suppress as it destroys the semiconductors). This is the joke of all jokes. But the students are so mystified by the central dogma that you cannot get anything more than from your input that they don't even realize that they do actually in the very software they use or some of the experiments that they engage in. And some people are just laughing at this fact. Then you leave college and get a job using that software to troubleshoot such problems. One day an old man comes along and draws attention to these contradictions and perhaps the technician realizes that he has been demonstrating this his whole career! So if you are looking for an example, just create your own and you will find that there are almost infinite combinations of things that will demonstrate this. Like I said, this list is so 90's all this is old news. You guys laugh at Don Smith and stumble over a few things he has said, but he spelled these things out in the 90's. The proud stumbled and the humble guys on the other side of the world made it all work. People just don't get it. So that is what I have written so much on the foundational problems. All this will force you to be very detailed and accountable in your thinking and words. Take it or leave it. I have done what I can to help. I will never attempt to prove anything over the internet. I give you recommendations to try. I point out facts you already know. You can let this help you or you will be offended by something I write and ignore everything else. It's up to you. It's kind of like the story of Aristotle talking to a guy who denied his own existence and he replied he will just go and talk to someone who actually exists. There is no point doing anything more.
So you have your content given here. Start at the real beginning and let's see if any of you can do real science. Like I said, I deal with real technicians all over the world who make real products and admit real 'anomalies'. I don't care what colleges say when they are bought and paid for by special interests. I will watch and see what you can do from here. If I get time I will try and hold people accountable to these self-evident foundations. What more do I need to say or do than lay a proper foundation that gives you almost infinite options to test these things out for yourselves. I can't prove to you anything, because only you can prove something to yourself. So forsake the 2 dimensional view of parts and always consider the total environmental effects on any process. Look beyond your prejudices and realize that there will always be more to learn about what you think you are observing. A little study of history will drive that truth home to you. So don't over-simplify and don't needlessly over-complicate. You can pick any of the 4 points mentioned above, or many more.
All the best!

Dear Rick,

The assertion and the counter-assertion are both useless, as long as there is no possibility at all to carry out any proof here.
In order to accomplish this, a factual analysis of the basic effect must first be generated, where a hypothesis is given about the properties and origin of the effect. Subsequently, the hypothesis is confirmed by the presentation of an experiment, either in theoretical nature or as a practical implementation. Then others can jump on this bandwagon and perform the experiments themselves to confirm or disprove the claim/hypothesis. This is simply a typical scientific approach.

I respect your work and the many hours you put into this project. But what is really missing between the many words you write here is a factual concise discussion of the physical conditions and the assumption of how the overunity effect arises. Also missing is the circuit diagram of a circuit that produces this effect. Why don't you just provide it? This would be valuable because then the discussion goes to a factual level. With the circuits that users Itsu have tried so far, the effect could not be proven. This only leads to the conclusion that they do not correspond to what you are using or that the experiment was not performed the way you are doing it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 17, 2019, 06:28:24 PM
This makes me very happy and it is many statements like this that have kept me in this work. There are humble souls all around the world that just want to get down to it, and if they can just be honestly directed they can succeed in these things. This has been a long process for myself to also be demystified from all the disinfo and distractions. But after years of interaction with good experimenters I have come to improved teaching on these matters. I still have a solid 2 months more work to better refine my teaching and fully illustrate my points, so it is a work in progress. I learn from everyone, even from G ;)
Thank you,
Rick

Hi Rick.
I'd like to thank you. In the last 15 months I followed all your videos and ordered Dons Book and also the Resonance kit. Struggled a long time with all the amazing informations (because of my lack of english language), but after some weeks I had the first success!!
No doubt anymore. It is all real and I can see it clearly directly on my table. 15 years of hope and failures again and again..and now success! I am very happy. Hope to overcome the next step and get a working Don device. Best regards..Markus
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 17, 2019, 06:44:37 PM
Not sure who you are (I don't do well with not reading people's actual names), but thanks for the posting. Yes, it may seem strange to say, but my goal was not to give the highest outputs possible for the kit, but a big agenda of mine is to keep people safe. The kit can already produce rf burn and I specifically avoided mention of connecting to actual ground because that can result it too much power. So I used 50V low Q caps as well. My goal is to have you see the very sensitive relationships. Of course we also made the kit with the identical parts of the original kit Don learned these things from, and where he said to start. So I am a true student of Don's and have not only replicated many of his claims but have also been able to fulfill his dream in making the book completed as he always wanted. Anyway, you rightly should be able to make many better systems. My other students have used more expensive and much faster gate drivers in the 4 nanosecond range with both this kit and the motor systems to show much more improved effects. I love to see people run with all this stuff. They have also made much higher Q coils (which you can see some of my bigger coils in the video I just uploaded).
As for everyone else, probably 99% of my customers are not going to be on these forums. They privately email each other after they meet at meetings and associate in the real world. These forums are really an outdated 90's thing that doesn't work anymore, and such people don't have time for all the distractions as they are actually building upon proper foundations. I mention this as so many people on these forums just assume that everyone has not succeeded in replicating and using this technology. But in fact not only are larger Don Smith systems used all around the world, but the process are being used right in some of the products you use already. It is a marvel that people cannot see what is right in front of them.


Hello !  :) I have the schematics.  There are around (at least ) 50 different setup shematics that you will come to as following the several experiments the kit will drive you through. I paid 100 usd for them and I have already stated HOW GRATEFUL I am to Rick for the golden experiments packed inside. He knows that, as I'm sometimes asking him questions which he has ALWAYS taken the time to answer. So you see, what' s really missing is YOU helping him. Now if you read carefully the figures Rick is listing you will be able to start this research with a physical exercise...I have , at the beginning during this thread, mentionned the Resonant induction coupler kit with a few indications that allow one not having bought the kit to discover the effect. This is why I ws able to "rebuild from chinese cables and caps" several other competitor kits to Rick, and all demonstrated how to light a 3.8 V with an input between 0.78 and 2.2 V. , therefore indicating to me I have understood at least the first few methods Rick is teaching us. Notice the word : teaching. So yes, I have replicated the kit with several inductors and capacitors. I have at least 4 or 5 concurrent versions that work, of which one better than the kit ! (ie LED brighter with lesser input). And including one that never works with my FG (2000V 47 uF caps if I recall) topping at 60mhz. I guess the inductance doesn't "cross" capacitance at that frequency...(have to try more ?), to use such terminology.
WHEN I ASKED ITSU WHY HE WOULD NEVER LIGHT HIS SMALL LED AT 1,2 MHZ AT 2 V BUT THAT IT WOULD BE LIGHTED UP BRIGTHLY AT 1.25 MHZ WHEN I TRIED TO EXPLAIN HIM THIS IS THE VOLTAGE MULTIPLICATION EFFECT IN RESONANCE, MY QUESTION REMAINS STILL ...RESPONSELESS (including by "mr smart" Gyula). Too bad : I have offered here even without the consent of Rick, but in the total sharing of the spirit of his work to help the world, the object of a first exercise in his kit that many if not all of you are incapable of analyzing properly !. I am no EE, and do not even know the difference between AC and a frequency generator at 60 HZ ! So guys, before tauntering others like I saw so many times (too many...), just be humble and GO TO THE BENCH ON YOUR OWN !
Final word also for a few posts (they will recognize themselves) about Rick too long, too this, too mmh what is worth your contribution blah blah... To each of them : Before having the audacious yet lost approach to ask Rick what he has done, I ask you the question : have you done the millionth of what he did for free in free energy ? Yes ? Spell your name, that I may run a google-compare with Your name !
To this other guy out tbere telling Rick he has gone farther than him in this research : if you have done better and are interjecting about this right now in this forum it is the proof you have never shared anything in comparison to Rick. Which amounts a massive underuniy system ! Zero sharing ie zero value ie zero gift (to me they are the same thing). Continue the same stuff : you will be able to take it with you to a much more useful place !...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 17, 2019, 07:11:31 PM
One of these days I will delete all my videos and start over again and do proper videos that I carefully do. So far I just made fast videos as I don't have the time. They are ok but not satisfactory to me as they are. So it may seem strange but I don't think much of my own videos. I agree with many of my critics, but under the circumstances they serve some purpose.
I don't know what particular concept you are referring to in the first sentence.
The second point is more involved and I have found a good place to find examples and teaching on that subject from practical real-world examples is with the rectenna technology. I spent many hours going over these details with my students and I like to use existing technology as a way of explaining these things. My point is to show you how you can go from the L2 or receiver coil onward. This includes the impedance matching and 1/4 wavelengths that are not part of my kit.
I am sorry but I have existing products that are proprietary that I am not going to just give away the details of this that relate to answering your question. That pertains to actually changing the phase angle... I have shared some of that at my meetings however. Give it another year with people getting used to the kits and I will add more options as I have time to properly teach on these things. But I have included an avarmenko plug in the kit for people to be able to gate out the energy from a series tank circuit through a one wire transfer to therefore charge a capacitor. All that is already part of the teaching of the kit. I also provide a variable capacitor so that if you detune a receiver coil you can also adjust the capacitor so that it can remain in resonance.
Everyone is wanting to jump to the conclusions and I can see that the foundation is still not settled yet. In the end no one really wants to be on this forum. They just want to have something given to them and be done with it. While I have done just that for many people over the years I also see more of a need to teach people how to make parts around them do what they want. But this is painful to get people to think for themselves and overcome their prejudices.
Reading your last phrase I may not entirely understand what you mean by "independent of input resonance". I will just mention here that, unlike the kit where we have equal coils and work with the same frequencies, in the real products you have primary and secondaries with different frequencies that are in 1/4 wave relationships.

Rick
Within plenty of your long videos ,which  one is the best to watch to understand concept ? English is not my native language and watching few 1hour long videos is too much for me
Can you explain how you move the phase angle between voltage and current in output resonant circuit to get output power independent of input resonance ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 17, 2019, 07:24:01 PM
Hey Thaelin,
Thanks for the input. Yes, that was a small meeting so I didn't think anyone from there would be on here. You have been on the old groups years ago so you can appreciate my points on the foundation here. Even your testimony could be fake and I want to stress how important it is for people to only allow something to be proven to themselves in the real world. We can develop only an hypothesis on these forums or with videos and pictures and testimony. People can be mistaken. Testimonies can be paid for, etc.
If you were in the room during the lunch hour you would have realized that I was not planning on showing the phase conjugation with the coils. It normally would take me some hours to set that all up to do that. So when I got it in place over lunch I changed the plan and decided to show that. And we added all the ferrite inductors with loads that we had on hand and each dropped the input as the frequency was reduced on the primary till it went as low as the power supply would allow. This is what I have sometimes done in my meetings when I was playing around with something and the people got to see something really special. Like when I was up all night in Goshen and was messing around with showing one motor powering another motor and then that powering a third motor which charged a battery, I decided to show the inverted motor concept that I have shown again. I showed it because people were walking in and I decided to go over it then. 

  Hi all:
    I have to chime in here as I was one of them in attendance. I went to Lodi, Ca for his two day work shop. I went to see one thing and found another as well. I sat there in disbelief as he added more and more output coils drawing a load and the input stayed the same. Just the output wattage was going up.
    What is in the book is what was setup. He had to stop adding more output coils due to not wanting to blow the scope used for the readings.


Not much more I can say. No video, no pictures other than the ones I took, just live right in front of all of us.


thay
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 17, 2019, 07:31:06 PM
Rick,........
.... This is what I suggested to RomeroUK years ago and he then showed a video
in which he carried his running mot-gen setup looped via a DC/DC converter with himself while walking...   

I wonder whether you are going to consider my looping suggestion or write about again my scepticism or about
bent scepticism  :) . You can say a self running setup can also be faked and this is true but if you show a certain
start-up procedure we could agree on in advance, openly on this forum, then faking could be minimized at least.

I would kindly suggest building this self running setup for members a.king and benfr because they have the original coils set. 


Gyula


I have a very serious point to make sir....


What happened to Romerouk after he showed that self runner?  Do you remember?
I'll remind you....he was visited by MIB and threatened with his life and he was too ill to work for months after that.
What happened to Tinman after he showed OU on youtube?  His videos were taken down and he was visited by MIB.
What happened to Dave Lawton after he replicated Stan Meyer and disclosed you had to charge the capacitors for over 12 hours to condition them?  He was visited by MIB who seized all his documents.
What happened to Thane Heinz students after they replicated his trafo and showed it on youtube? I rang them up in Canada and they were terrified and denied OU (they didn't know who I was  ie if I was a government agent).
I also spoke to Lutec years ago and they were terrified and denied OU to me.
If Rick shows me a circuit - I will build it but you will never get a video. PERIOD.
This is not a game and Rick knows the line not to cross.  Re-read his posts.  He says so.
So please devise a test where the line is not crossed but satisfies the EE in you.  If me and benfr replicating but not showing a video is fine, then I am OK with that.
Kind regards...


EDIT:  How could I forget... What happened to Wesley (Stivep) and Kapanadze when they were together on a plane?  Both were poisoned on the plane and nearly died........  There is even a video Wesley took of kapanadze in an ill state.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 17, 2019, 07:55:06 PM
  Hi all:
    I have to chime in here as I was one of them in attendance. I went to Lodi, Ca for his two day work shop. I went to see one thing and found another as well. I sat there in disbelief as he added more and more output coils drawing a load and the input stayed the same. Just the output wattage was going up.
    What is in the book is what was setup. He had to stop adding more output coils due to not wanting to blow the scope used for the readings.


Not much more I can say. No video, no pictures other than the ones I took, just live right in front of all of us.


thay

Can you please explain the statement I have high-lighted.  You are saying the input power did not go up as he kept adding more coils.  I have no problem understanding that part.  But how was a scope being used in such a way as to possibly damage it when measuring the output power?  I have used scopes for over 50 years and I don't understand how the scope was put in danger by adding more output coils.  It is strange statements like this that make confusion for those of us with real electronics experience.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Thaelin on June 17, 2019, 08:24:11 PM
Carol:
     The scope was used as a meter to read the high voltage probe. Had he kept going, the output would have exceeded what the scope is capable of. Like what I did to my Tek scope. Very nice scope but not any more.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on June 17, 2019, 09:08:38 PM
I agree about Q factor, but there is slight problem here : why Q factor is a gain , energy gain ?  What is your theory ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on June 17, 2019, 09:14:24 PM
cifta
My blind guess....(wonder how much I missed the point )  - the input was kind of combined series and parallel resonant circuit working *together* with output resonant circuits in *secret* mode , so the  power (to leds) was full or partly real at output yet the voltage in input circuits raised when each output coil was added. The same I saw explained by Ruslan Kulabuhov. That's reasonable explanation of scope damage
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 17, 2019, 09:16:58 PM
Carol:
     The scope was used as a meter to read the high voltage probe. Had he kept going, the output would have exceeded what the scope is capable of. Like what I did to my Tek scope. Very nice scope but not any more.


Now I am even more confused.  What high voltage?  I thought he was lighting up LEDs?  And you and he both have said the power input to the primary coil was going down.  So where was he measuring high voltage?



Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 17, 2019, 09:30:20 PM
Hi Forest,

We both posted at the same time I see.  If your explanation is correct that means we have only been told part of the story.  Because all I keep reading is that the input current kept going down when more secondary coils were added.  I don't remember anyone saying anything about the input voltage going up.  Maybe I missed that or it was conveniently not mentioned.

If in fact the input voltage rises as the secondary coils are added that would make perfect sense for a tuned resonant circuit.  What I mean is that as coils are added the total inductance is being raising which is shifting the frequency response and thus the input signal will see a higher inductance and thus a higher voltage will be needed to overcome the increase in inductance.  We get that from the old school saying about inductors and capacitors :  ELI the ICE man  which is a convenient way to remember that voltage leads current in an inductor  and current leads voltage in a capacitor.   The inductive reactance must be very high for Rick to be afraid of blowing a scope connected to a high voltage probe.   No wonder he is afraid of people getting hurt messing with his circuits.

Thanks for your input.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on June 17, 2019, 09:52:15 PM
What happens in seriell or parallel arrays network !?

Technical nothing special this concept :
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004100349A1/de
But energetical input versus energetical output. ?
Energetical input versus energetical output here : sjr ?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M3YWB-noPNo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 17, 2019, 10:24:12 PM

Trying to do a loopback on a 15F supercap stack feeding the gate driver.
FG still on 12V battery (plus 5V regulator), see diagram.
Supercap stack was first loaded to 12.5v using a PS.

I put 5 satellite coils each with their own schottky diode (Bat 46´s) bridge rectifier and puffer cap in parallel
to feedback the supercap stack.

First showing that the 5 parallel satellite coils can put up enough power to light up a 3W led (3.7V @ 60mA)

Then installing the supercap and feedback from the 5 satellite coils to this supercap.

Voltage starts to drop immediately no matter what i do like putting up additional load (input power drops) etc.

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

All coils are tuned to 180Khz resonance frequency.

Hopefully A.king21, Benfr and ...... can repeat this loopback test with more positive results.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 17, 2019, 10:37:16 PM
  Itsu:
2 points immediately spring to mind.  By using supercaps you are missing the Heavyside component  I would first try it with batteries and analyse the result over several hours if not days.
Secondly you are  not getting the energy from the electrons in the ground.  It is a hard concept to understand that the ground can replicate to and add to some extent the energy you already have.


Then we have to exclude mains bleed, because these circuits can pick up energy from your house mains wiring.
You also have to mess with the positioning of the coils because the magnetic fields emanating from the coils can reduce the input draw  as I have experienced.


Anyway I will look at your video in due course.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 17, 2019, 11:43:45 PM
Additionally you should move your coils away from the tX coil.  The way I understand it is like this:
If the satellite coils are almost touching the TX coil then it acts like a normal transformer.
If you move them out say 5 to 10 cm out  then the device acts like the Don Smith setup and you can duplicate the energy.
Also adding an earth ground  amplifies the energy.


This is what we are trying to prove.



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 18, 2019, 12:01:30 AM
A.king,

Yes I also remember what happened to Romero like you (but with small modification: he got ill when he was tinkering
extensively with Kapanedze-like setups and close to high voltage like Nelson).  (But this is a secondary issue now, I think.)
And I would like to add that there was a forum member here, very likely also from London, UK (where Romero was) and he knew (!) RomeroUK
name and  address and posted it openly in the same thread the Muller generator was discussed!  This member was a member on RomeroUK's
private forum too and was demanding  the "secrets" from Romero on that forum  but Romero refused him. I guess this event was crucial in the
final ending. So it is possible that  in this case the 'MIBs' were private grabbers from this or other forums reading his
address and visiting him. 
Regarding your interest in starting the first tests for the looping, just remove the LED bulb from the output of a receiver unit,
build a full wave voltage doubler and drive its AC input by the receiver parallel LC circuit. 
I just watched Itsu video and comments on his looping attemp. His 5 receiver units are not able to provide enough energy
yet to recharge the supercap. Very likely with more refinements and tuning he will get closer to unity.  Possible improvements
may include what Romero used for reducing diode bridge losses see his drawings here :https://overunity.com/3842/muller-dynamo/msg284131/#msg284131 (https://overunity.com/3842/muller-dynamo/msg284131/#msg284131) 
Also, using a full wave voltage doubler which involves only 2 diodes (instead 4 for in bridge) can help reduce overall diode
losses but the ultimate improvement may come from using more and more receiver coils, with bigger sizes too. 
If you have questions, I try to answer.

Gyula

I have a very serious point to make sir....


What happened to Romerouk after he showed that self runner?  Do you remember?
I'll remind you....he was visited by MIB and threatened with his life and he was too ill to work for months after that.
What happened to Tinman after he showed OU on youtube?  His videos were taken down and he was visited by MIB.
What happened to Dave Lawton after he replicated Stan Meyer and disclosed you had to charge the capacitors for over 12 hours to condition them?  He was visited by MIB who seized all his documents.
What happened to Thane Heinz students after they replicated his trafo and showed it on youtube? I rang them up in Canada and they were terrified and denied OU (they didn't know who I was  ie if I was a government agent).
I also spoke to Lutec years ago and they were terrified and denied OU to me.
If Rick shows me a circuit - I will build it but you will never get a video. PERIOD.
This is not a game and Rick knows the line not to cross.  Re-read his posts.  He says so.
So please devise a test where the line is not crossed but satisfies the EE in you.  If me and benfr replicating but not showing a video is fine, then I am OK with that.
Kind regards...


EDIT:  How could I forget... What happened to Wesley (Stivep) and Kapanadze when they were together on a plane?  Both were poisoned on the plane and nearly died........  There is even a video Wesley took of kapanadze in an ill state.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 18, 2019, 12:55:51 AM
G,
Unfortunately your response makes it a little involved to separate your words from mine in how your replied. And bad for you that you did not specifically answer my repeated questions but gave only partial commitment. Probably no one on this forum cares about your analysis of anyone's claims while you refuse to tell us what you really believe and why you believe it. And that is you playing a game, not me. I am pointing out your game which I have seen so many do long before you. I am not new to this my friend.

Notice you say I "make it impossible for the forum members to ascertain what is the truth on the COP of your setup." NOTICE EVERYONE, that G means THROUGH THE FORUM, but not to yourselves in the real world. So G is committing to his credulity and incredulity in affirming, and that in the way of almost an attack against me for drawing attention to it's absurdity, that you can prove or disprove something through testimony, videos, pictures or words. He refuses to admit the impossibility of that critical position he maintains. He does not justify that assumption. He diverts on to secondary matters that come AFTER that is established. How dare I take the carpet out from under his feet!!! lol Again, what does anything matter if you are just going to believe or disbelieve a report you cannot verify? And again, why not just admit this and verify to yourself? Because such people are not here to do that but to put doubt into others or maybe to datamine as I said. You can never really know one's motives but you can observe the fruit and their evasions. Of all people, you guys even fault me for this, I am thorough and do not run from questions. But I will demand that you start at the beginning and admit the facts of reality. We cannot prove or disprove anything through this Forum. We can only develop hypothesis and test them out ourselves in the real world. No amount of people coming on saying this actually works and here is a video showing it, or this doesn't work, and here is a video showing, can create honest rational conviction about such matter. This is more important to realize than anything else on this entire forum. Believe me (lol) at least on this point based upon my years of experience doing this with people all over the world. I say that as I am sort of a counselor for people and have helped many people who have lost faith and money and time playing this game. (Many years ago I also helped people out of cults, and before that worked for some years as a counselor with people who were mentally challenged.) "Don't believe the hype" of the lists people. Learn how to detect fallacies. Especially prestige jargon fallacies...

Again G, what is my setup? As one guy has mentioned, there were many setups. So maybe my pictured setup at the meeting or in the Saturday video I just uploaded. These are fluid setups that can do many things. Yes it is indeed impossible for anyone to evaluate the COP of that system if you are not physically present. Even then you could look at the power of each bulb or you could look at half or 1/8th of them and get a good estimate maybe. But after you are over 1 then probably people would realize that it was much higher. Again, you miss the point that this is not the final setup, it is just a learning tool to show you how tuning can affect things, and to demonstrate the great mistake people think about radio transmission in thinking that all the power enters into one receiver coil in the nearfield. It shows you on the basic level that you can add as many coils in that entire area without raising the input draw, but actually lowering it the more coils are added. Never even mind the effects of adding ground connections to each coil. That would take a while to set up. You are looking too much towards a magical parts setup and are ignoring the themes approach I am doing. My attendees, while finding some of these demonstrations sensational, are more impressed with learning how to do these things themselves than merely trying to copy one model. So if you want to do the easiest model, then just do the fan conversion and move the diode over and charge a battery. There is your OU shown in five minutes. Oh but Rick that is old news! Obviously it is not settled. Oh Rick we are not satisfied with 2 outputs for one input, we require 3 times the energy. Well, I'll give you that if you concede that it is really 2 times first. Hey, where did they go?

Do I ridicule anyone who is asking me? I am ridiculing the idea that people assume you can prove anything from a testimony on this forum. Don't you get it man? Without this truth then any and every wild claim is proven. And also every and any claim is disproven. And that is the chaos on all these forums. This is what you are directly contributing to. And now when I pinpoint it you say it is ridicule for another reason. Don't you get it? I have given exactly what you want for 15 years in many ways. But that approach was lacking because a proper context was not insisted upon and when people came to the parts with their own biases they naturally over and under assumed things and it resulted in chaos. And I am not really sure what I have failed to mention even in that regard. Yes I could give you the exact bulbs (ebay) used, wire lengths (harbor freight), etc. But this is not over and if necessary we can list all that. However, I am not about to make everything in my kit on this forum anymore than any of you are going to work for free.

Why on this one point, after refusing to respond to the actual key points, do you get all legalistic on me and jump on my question to you? Will you not answer even that question? What if the bulbs were all at 0.5W? Is that question an evasion? No actually you will not walk with me in that hypothetical question? And my point was that whatever answer I gave, under the conditions you stated for belief in OU confirmed on this forum, you would have to accept without prejudice. So let's say they average all together at 0.5W each, because they you know they would all be at least slightly different (with slight movement they can be more or less, especially the bulb off the ferrite core coil). You make your biggest point that I asked you a question and then accuse me of evading the question. This is sophistry my friend. This is deflection and your refusal to comply with your own bias methodology of concluding for or against something based on things shown through this forum rather than only doing that in the real world. Nice try but your fallacy is clearly seen by everyone. Anyway, I already gave you the numbers so why focus on my question that you refuse to answer? Why not focus on when I said I can make this all go negative. Or now you can read what Thaelin wrote about what I showed in Lodi CA last summer. In such cases if the input is zero then COP is infinite whatever load is run. You see that is chapter 3 in my book, which is still on the basic level side of the book (section 1)! If I have 1mw output or 50W output, what does it even matter if I have zero input. If you want to understand that study Barrett as I said. You won't do that of course. Or admit to doing that. I say this because you are manifestly committed. I hoped for better.

As for measuring the bulbs, it is a little more tricky on the tank side of things because of the 1.25MHz frequency than on the DC side of measurements. And you even have to consider what light meter you use that has to compare a DC measurement with constant current and no pulsing and a hf pulsing. So yes, measuring capacitors is good to do. But guess what my friend. This only gets worse for you. Because the bulbs are not meant for high frequency and really are only responding to what amounts to like a low frequency in the same way as a diode (which an LED is a diode) that is not rf rated cuts off the wave and only little dribbles may get through. This is one of the most frequent reason why people fail on Don Smith replications, because they don't have the right diodes. Anyway, we are still charging up caps inside the bulbs, so you could look at their voltage over time with your scope and do the math. I have all the equipment and do that for many years now. But as I wrote in a few posts back, I do provide the avarmenko plug for the one wire experiments where a cap can be charged up over time. So you have to have diodes and caps that are for rf or you have very limited results. And that was my intention to have dumbed down parts to keep things safe and also for people to even be impressed with non-rf loads so that when they move on they really are in for a treat. So yes I realize all the limitations of using bulbs and have a proper understanding of how to evaluate them. Elsewhere in commercial products I deal with all that with the correct parts, etc. You have to properly lower the frequency so that the low frequency parts can actually respond in their fullest way, and you also have to deal with impedance matching. But I am showing none of that, just some basic stuff here. It is enough to make the points I am making. So if I did all the frequency conversion and grounding I would have to use higher wattage bulbs as I would have a lot more energy to deal with. But my point in the kit is not how much power can be created as you guys are only wanting to deal with, but how to learn the relationships of the coils with themselves in a way that you can see the subtle differences. You don't care to pay attention to that even though I stated that many times. Or to respond to almost anything I have said.
I find it ironic that you state in contradiction: "If you do not measure it at each bulbs, then you simply do not know." So if you do not measure, personally, here in the real world, then you simply do not know. Is that not fair enough? You see, you prove again and again, that when you disagree with something that you resort to my true point which is self-evident, that you cannot prove what you do not see for yourself (in these matters). But I claim each bulb is on average measured 0.5W under the circumstances without the frequency conversion proper way of doing this. So then what? Without grounding, or frequency conversions for optimum loading, will these numbers be enough? If I show pictures and video, will that be enough? If I have another person, or 18, or 100, or all the labs you know say this, how can any of it be proven to you? Why should you ever be convinced for or against a claim like this? Hasn't even the whole world been wrong many times? And yes again, we don't need to look at the light at all, we can just measure the caps charging and discharging over time (just make sure you have the right caps). Welcome to my work with measuring batteries and capacitors all day long... I find it humorous that you make so many assumptions about me. It's good for people to see this now so they can move past all these games.

Notice the only real answer to my major question for you is: "So the real or average power is nowhere near what you imply in your text." You do not want to answer the simple question if resonance is a gain. Instead you equivocate the question to the word "power" as if the only thing that is of value is "power" measurements. So again we are all wanting know G, is there any real gain with resonance? We can deal with the phasing later. In the end can there be any gain at all, or will it always come down to a transformer or accumulation process? You divert the subject to a side point about what you think is happening within the tank instead of plainly answering the question. 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! Oh boy, here comes the POWER POLICE to stop you. If there is no "power" measured in the fuel cell then we can't consider it because only the power meters show you our bias, I am what our books say, I am what we tell you you have to pay for--boy this doesn't come out right ;) Haha the game is up G, Stan showed this stuff 20 years ago. Some of you know me that I just have to do it. Make the conglomerate of taps, kind of like showing all these coils just because, showing how, at the same time we split water (to "power" some loads), and power an electrical load which runs or "powers" the tank input itself, and then put a motor with duty cycle on it to use the coils to pulse a motor (to "power" some other loads), and then we also use that fluxing to influence distant coils (in this setup in discussion, which "power" some bulbs that all MUST be combined to be less than 0.75W to satisfy G underunity claims), and then I'll make the L1 transmitter with the right wire to create a heater in a core so I can "power" some loads with heat (probably not), and then … So you see everyone, G is right, the phase relationships are such that this is only an apparent gain but cannot actually be used to "power" anything while it is oscillating. We don't see "power" measured in the bare tank circuit he says. Why is the G? Maybe because "power" is the wasted energy measured in regards to a certain kind of closed looped load. You think??? Well, throw in a resistor and the power measurement will still be more than the input (which is one of our tests in the kit). But rather than use a resistive load directly as these guys limit themselves in doing with nonlinear analysis, why not move to the reactive side as Barrett points out you need to do to do the Teslean processes. Why not then indirectly power resistive loads in the ways I just mentioned. All of these humorous additions are no joke and can be easily be done at the same time while getting the same outputs from each of them as if they were done alone (more or less as some of them would effect each other in a minor way). I don't usually do all possibilities, but I sometimes do these setups that are crazy like that. You call can see my various motors with several different processes at the same time. This is just an extension of that. Now G will not thank me for sharing all that and opening up some real doors, and I doubt he will say anything confirmatory or positive about anything I write. So I will at least say I appreciate him being polite about this. And hopefully he and everyone can read appropriately my humor into everything I am writing. This is done with a style that drives the truth home.

Again, I will stress that G's whole argument is that most of the things done and claimed on this forum cannot happen because we are limited to this paragraph which ends up meaning that only power measurements are acceptable to evaluate what you have, and that means you will only get under unity experiences WHEN YOU MEASURE THAT POWER WITHIN THE PRIMARY TANK CIRCUIT!!! Notice I mentioned that if we create power INDIRECTLY outside of the goods, the source charge of the tank, then we can use the meters. But when we try and put a meter on the source itself we get nothing. And in order to get any power measurement we have to add resistance that will usually dampen the effect. But don't throw away your power meters yet folks, because we can indirectly power other loads as I mentioned. Ah too bad though, because Kirchhoff is holding a gun to us telling that we cannot include those other body associations in our calculations because the loop always has to equal up to what?? So if you do power loads from water splitting, run electrical loads as well, or power through the motor or receiver coils, that is not part of the loop so the boundary conditions are set only in a very narrow way. So these are not allowed because we are only dealing with a closed system of a single loop that would not be fair to expose the game. Tom Bearden rightly wrote: "We produce power (rate of energy dissipation) electrical engineers rather than energy transport engineers." Hopefully everyone can see now the difference with my extended humor.

Oh I forgot to mention in the last paragraph that we have shown for years that if you try and measure "power" transfer in the negative impulse charging YOU WILL NEVER get consistency with your power meters measuring the charging battery (over time) with what you measure powering loads from it over time. The reason is because the battery is charging itself up from the environment (the energy converges into the load) and the input side is merely a trigger event and not an amperage or power process. This is why so many of you dismissed the SSG because you measured no power. But power resistive loads all you want from the battery while showing now power charging the battery. WOW! But this is outside their college level junior teaching. They can't accept true negative resistance.

Now there are many things that I could tear apart within that paragraph. Here is one: "You have a voltage gain and voltage is not power or energy in itself." Who says that "power" and "energy" are the exact same thing? G does. Voltage is real potential and is not what G and these guys think it is. It is not my interest to insist upon words or try and claim exactly what voltage is here, but it is easy to see for yourself how you can translate this reading of voltage gain to an actual gain in the real world (provided you don't kill the source charge as these guys do automatically). Anyway, power is not the same as energy. There is energy without power just as the charging of my batteries shows no power reading but can show power readings of indirect loads run off the battery. That is because there is no power reading of a source itself. It is only when you kill the source charge that you read the power rate of dissipation. Let that be forever settled!!!

So in essence, G is saying that within these resonance processes we only have a V I transformer action. He didn't want to say it that obviously but wanted to engage with most of you in the prestige jargon fallacy so that you would not all understand exactly what he was saying. This protects him from admitting clearly that, yes Rick, there is no useful gain coming from resonance but a merely adjustments of volts and amps, and/or an accumulation of oscillations for various applications where that is need for tuning, etc. No free energy here folks. Move on. Don't you talk about Stan now! Leave those motors out of it! Forget those many receiver coils! Resonance tanks are but filters or just for tuning into radio stations according to the college texts. Do not confuse yourself about Q or multiplication words. This is just apparent. You can't actually get any rf burn because it is not really 1300V people. That 25ma input is not circulating anymore because it is transformed lower to 0.00017A and what is that going to do to you? But is it even correct to say that we have amperage at all without a load?

Anyway, the big mistake of all these people is killing the source charge with a closed loop circuit, disregarding many body networks, so that these processes cannot be used to any benefit. I've said enough on that already but it applies also to what he is saying here. We are going to use this magnetic and dielectric fluxing in an open sense rather in their closed sense. They can put their power meters on the indirect loads but they won't even stay around to observe them. They are not part of the circuit being measured so they will already have left the room. They will fall apart and would not know what to do beholding such. It is just fascinating for me to watch their faces twitch and contort when you show them these things. It is premium entertainment. So far this has been not so dramatic as it could be.

There is no justification for saying "power" measurement should be considered the only standard of what is beneficial. Says who? Again, almost everything on this forum would be foolishness if that was the case. And the previous claim that he expected some circuit to give some extra results is a flat out deception to say. Notice no clarification of that statement is given here. He just ignored my essential questions and proceeded to spew out mainstream theory. Explain to me G, how could that line from you be sincere at all in light of these statements? I guess he will never respond to that which exposes him in these ways. So essentially we have a guy coming here to act like he is open to overunity but is really here to deny it all, and when pressed admits that only power measurements can be used to evaluate such matters. Well, measure the power indirectly in the external loads. Oh wait a minute! Where did he go? G, come bring your power meter over here on the output of the motor! Can you put another one on the hydrogen output? And a few more here and there? Where did he go? He moved onto another forum guys because the game is up.

Now the closest thing to admitting my main point is G saying, "Of course any setup shown in a video can be faked, this can be true." Wow that seems like a good sentence. But then he moves away from that with: "How about to minimize this possibility?" It is either one or the other. How can one minimize the possibility when any video can be faked? These are opposites. There is no way to make the fact that any video can be faked more minimized. So it is clear that G holds faith in his ability to judge testimony in these forms as credible. He cannot fully commit to this fact because he wants to disprove things here and has convinced many of you that he is really able to so evaluate claims here. But no one is. Only to yourself, and even you may make mistakes. And if you think that I am being unrealistic here, then take a couple of years to study the history of science and you will understand my perspective. How much evil has resulted from this sort of mischief?

As far as charging caps (as is done already in the LED bulbs) and combining them together, I already said that was one option. But I don't bother with that when I can get the input down to zero anyway. But it is an important thing when we go from the L2 to the final load.

Yes I remember when RomeoUK did that, and I think he was using one of my coils. He gave some good points here and there for those who have ears to hear. Anyway, these are fun things to do but unnecessary when we can bring the power down to zero and continue using our loads as we want. There seems to be this mad rush to merely make something self-running without doing anything else useful. It is relatively easy to make systems do that.

Ah, I already brought that up about self-looping. That is 15 years old for me. We did that first with the motors back then. In this Resonance system we do it with 1/4 wave or harmonics or with just making a loop of the power wire from the battery as Don did. There are several ways to do it.

Then G ends this with his closed loop of the main point of contention. He clearly does not believe what he stated that all videos could be faked:
"You can say a self running setup can also be faked and this is true but if you show a certain start-up procedure we could agree on in advance, openly on this forum, then faking could be minimized at least."

G, I have spent a lot of time exposing fake videos over the years. Once you know how the true process works you can figure out where the faking takes place. But just how could faking be minimized? Who are any of you that I, or anyone, should trust any number of people? Who would be the judge to determine if faking is happening or not? And what benefit would any of you have if these two guys get something from me (which they already have) and share with you when you do not believe what they already shared, and when no one should conclude on anything like this over the internet?

What you are trying to do is distract from the real issues G. I have turned them over again and again and you divert and evade. You appear to admit my point but then take it back right away and suggest the opposite that an absolute fact could be somehow not absolute. That is real confusion.

Folks, get out of the fantasy land of these people want to indoctrinating you into paid for by special interests groups making you dependent upon them. Call these people out on their hype and fallacies. Insist that they tell you exactly what they believe. Turn over these foundational points until you laugh so hard that you can't sleep (which happened to one of you last night). Understand the important themes and apply them that all these important people from around Faraday to Dollard have been sharing. Don't be overwhelmed by prestige jargon or diverting fallacies as we see here. Figure out first how to believe and when to believe. The schools today teach you merely what to believe because it is easy to manage fools.

What more is there to say? I'm not saying anything knew, I'm just passing on what I saw on some video on another forum :P

Rick,

I do not participate in your game you are playing here. You try to create a situation which would make it impossible for the forum members to ascertain what is the truth on the COP of your setup. And you try to ridicule any member  here who dare to ask about the real performance of your setup. 
Of course you did neglect my point from my Reply #568 when I wrote you had not written measured results in your text but a conditional question ("would 0.5W on the bulbs be acceptable to me on these bigger bulbs"?). 
And then on the following day you already referred to your own conditional question as a fact that you had already answered my measurement request, as if you had already stated the 0.5W as measured.  Yes, 0.5W for 8 bulbs would be very good for you  because 4W is already gives COP>1  BUT what if the brightness involved is less than 0.5W for each bigger bulb? If you do not measure it at each bulbs, then you simply do not know. 
You wrote this on gain for your setup:
"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)."

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=VxIxcos(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 diodebridges can be easily estimated.
Of course any setup shown in a video can be faked, this can be true. How about to minimize this possibility?
How about rectifying the output of all the 8 (or your choice) bigger receiver units (omit the LED bulbs from their output) and collect the 8 (or any you choose) DC outputs into a common puffer capacitor of say 10 milliF or more as desired?  Then this DC voltage could feed your gate driver IC and also a low power square wave generator to drive the input of the gate driver. The 8 (or more) receiver units should be able to maintain the charge level in the puffer capacitor the gate driver IC and the square wave generator is consuming because you hinted at a COP of at least over 10.  (Based on your text: "So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input.")   
This claimed COP value would surely serve the use of a DC/DC converter to have a stable DC supply available from its output to fully replace your regulated power supply.  Even one single 3W LED bulb could be run off one of the bigger receiver coils separately to show certain brightness.  The input of this converter would receive energy from the big puffer capacitor, closing the loop. This is what I suggested to RomeroUK years ago and he then showed a video in which he carried his running mot-gen setup looped via a DC/DC converter with himself while walking...   
I wonder whether you are going to consider my looping suggestion or write about again my scepticism or about bent scepticism  :) . You can say a self running setup can also be faked and this is true but if you show a certain start-up procedure we could agree on in advance, openly on this forum, then faking could be minimized at least.
I would kindly suggest building this self running setup for members a.king and benfr because they have the original coils set. 
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 18, 2019, 01:22:34 AM
I actually have self-runner videos online and all the stuff people are asking for. It doesn't matter because only the fake videos get millions of hits. Videos are not good enough. This is my point folks. How can you prove them. Bedini and I posted that window motor running for 20 minutes off of one audio amp cap while producing a good bit of torque. That video is still viewed. It is impressive and was just with the bedini/cole circuit. It created a stir in that day. I showed many things like that, but it was never enough. Anyone doing this stuff has had various kinds of visits and has suffered for doing this. But probably most of it is self-inflicted lol. Most of the rest of that is imaginary paranoia from being in a camp of wild conspiracy theorists (see my latest video on that point--which btw was the first video youtube flagged for not being able to find advertisers due to the content). In the end John Bedini deleted all my forums with tens of thousands of emails showing this stuff and thus proving to be a gate keeper himself. I'm not sure what all the lines are exactly but I know some of them. We cannot make a powerful purely magnet motor unless we lease it and be a power company as at least one guy did. We can make a Howard Johnson type one, like his train that we had, that doesn't do any real power. You are dealing with a mofia of sorts so you are dealing with their control. Ultimately the biggest threat is the spiritual one. This is the point which most conspiracy theorists have fallen trap to. The trap is to feed you just enough truth to make you think you are smart but all the while keep you from walking with God in true holiness of heart and life. Get you chasing after everyone's evil deeds and making you proud that you figured something out. Let me tell you, if you are spiritually dead, then that is right where they want you. Full of sin, bias, distraction. Then you are no different.
Anyway, showing a video self-running is not really as big of a deal as you thing. Depends on what kind of system. The one that comes to mind that would give you a visit is the magnet motor. Think about the chaos that would result around the world over night? It would destroy the credibility of all the physics departs in the colleges. That would destroy the schools credibility and reveal the fact that the schools are bought and paid for. It would destroy the idea of the 'professional'. So even apart from the changes and expectations that would immediately result in relation to OU becoming common knowledge (which is huge in itself), all these other points would be very problematic. So even though it is relatively easy to do few people are willing to do it. But me showing 0 or 4ma @4v input and powering 50W of loads really isn't a big deal and is kind of old news. But any sensational video ends up making people crazed and makes them try to merely copy the setup exactly rather than try and understand what is going on. You can see an example like that with the 2001 Don Smith video from Bruce's meeting where a guy is asking him for parts and Don tries to bring this point I am making about the themes approach. You have to understand some things right or you can't make these things work as you will contradict it.


I have a very serious point to make sir....


What happened to Romerouk after he showed that self runner?  Do you remember?
I'll remind you....he was visited by MIB and threatened with his life and he was too ill to work for months after that.
What happened to Tinman after he showed OU on youtube?  His videos were taken down and he was visited by MIB.
What happened to Dave Lawton after he replicated Stan Meyer and disclosed you had to charge the capacitors for over 12 hours to condition them?  He was visited by MIB who seized all his documents.
What happened to Thane Heinz students after they replicated his trafo and showed it on youtube? I rang them up in Canada and they were terrified and denied OU (they didn't know who I was  ie if I was a government agent).
I also spoke to Lutec years ago and they were terrified and denied OU to me.
If Rick shows me a circuit - I will build it but you will never get a video. PERIOD.
This is not a game and Rick knows the line not to cross.  Re-read his posts.  He says so.
So please devise a test where the line is not crossed but satisfies the EE in you.  If me and benfr replicating but not showing a video is fine, then I am OK with that.
Kind regards...


EDIT:  How could I forget... What happened to Wesley (Stivep) and Kapanadze when they were together on a plane?  Both were poisoned on the plane and nearly died........  There is even a video Wesley took of kapanadze in an ill state.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 18, 2019, 01:45:13 AM
Since I had to fly there I only shipped a few boxes. I used my friend's stuff and the scope was limited. I don't remember that point about being worried about the scope being damaged but oddly enough I had an Amish man call me up to day and ask me the same question :o when he was wondering what scope to buy. I really don't think about that unless I am doing like 50kv or something. But this guy called the manufacturer and they told him supposedly that he could damage a scope with over 300V. I told him that I would always use the 10 times probe when working with those voltages, but that sometimes it was on 1x and I never had any noticeable damage. This guy was asking these very questions because he wanted to know if he needed a 1000x probe. Anyway, I think I may have said something about the high voltage as we did have the coil that did 5000V and maybe I only had my 100x probe (which don't be fooled in thinking that will go more than 2500V or you will pay to learn the hard way). So I think it was in relation to the probe and not the scope if I recall.

Carol:
     The scope was used as a meter to read the high voltage probe. Had he kept going, the output would have exceeded what the scope is capable of. Like what I did to my Tek scope. Very nice scope but not any more.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 18, 2019, 01:53:43 AM
He, I, had the oscope across the transmitter coil. I had made a big coil on a six inch pvc coupler (the thin walled one as there is also a slightly bigger thick walled one) with 123 turns of #18 wire with 1' pigtails on the ends. In order to match that coil with the frequency of the smaller coils with an available cap, we used 5nf caps for the small coils and 300 something pf with an adjustable cap I show in the last video, and ran it at 180kHz. That produced between 4500 and 5000+V. The former when I tuned it to match the small coils, but it's peak was 5k. You could feel it ten feet away. Especially at the Canadian meeting where I put it on a round table. It represented about 900W of power if you know how to use this.


Now I am even more confused.  What high voltage?  I thought he was lighting up LEDs?  And you and he both have said the power input to the primary coil was going down.  So where was he measuring high voltage?



Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 18, 2019, 02:08:07 AM
What I remember is that he took in too much ozone at one point when he was doing spark gaps. I can imagine if he got ill from that his wife would have had something to say about his experiments. Like I said, we generally cause our own problems and people are over-inclined to believe foul play. Same thing happened with Bedini when Gary Bedini died. Immediate some guy posts a video that there had to be something bad if John died 3 hours later. They were both very unhealthy guys, so it was only a matter of time. John certainly was not any kind of threat that needed to be taken out.
The other thing is that many people tire of this scene. They have all they need and just have to get on with life. That's kind of where I am at. I have completed all my goals and will move on shortly. Will always supervise teams of people doing this stuff, but there isn't anything more for me to do...

A.king,

Yes I also remember what happened to Romero like you (but with small modification: he got ill when he was tinkering extensively with Kapanedze-like setups and close to high voltage like Nelson). …
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 18, 2019, 04:53:15 AM
What I remember is that he took in too much ozone at one point when he was doing spark gaps. I can imagine if he got ill from that his wife would have had something to say about his experiments. Like I said, we generally cause our own problems and people are over-inclined to believe foul play. Same thing happened with Bedini when Gary Bedini died. Immediate some guy posts a video that there had to be something bad if John died 3 hours later. They were both very unhealthy guys, so it was only a matter of time. John certainly was not any kind of threat that needed to be taken out.
The other thing is that many people tire of this scene. They have all they need and just have to get on with life. That's kind of where I am at. I have completed all my goals and will move on shortly. Will always supervise teams of people doing this stuff, but there isn't anything more for me to do...
Well, I'd like a kit for the 4th and 5th stage in the Don Smith process.  So that's something to do.
Also a better video of Bedini's video 7 showing some examples of shuttling the energy around would be useful. (I am actually trying it out as I post ie using the extra energy to power the input as an experiment) Thinking aloud that might work in the RICK hmm..
So there's 2 things to do and I am sure the forum can ask for more that would help.
Yes I agree about the motor thing.  "They" don't like to see motors running with no input.  If you have a battery in there or something plugged into the wall, I guess that's ok.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 18, 2019, 06:10:37 AM
As I said, if you study the rectenna technology that will help you understand these various stages from the L2 onward. This is usually on the micro size but the new technology of wireless power transmission will get bigger and bigger. Anyway, everything you need to learn is right there. There really isn't anything usual or unconventional with those processes. The rectenna tech needs to squeeze every bit it can to power it's loads so you can follow the patents over the years to see all the advancements. It's not my interest to teach on those kinds of subjects. This is something that you guys should be able to deal with on this forum. I may add some additions to the kit along these lines, but it will be a bit before I get the time.
As for video 7 we are doing that already with the resonance kit with series of parallel tank circuits with the one wire transmission. This is partly shown on the front cover of the book. With the motors I hope to get to adding that to the motor kits in 6 months or so.
Yeah, electromagnetic systems may be. IDK

Well, I'd like a kit for the 4th and 5th stage in the Don Smith process.  So that's something to do.
Also a better video of Bedini's video 7 showing some examples of shuttling the energy around would be useful. (I am actually trying it out as I post ie using the extra energy to power the input as an experiment) Thinking aloud that might work in the RICK hmm..
So there's 2 things to do and I am sure the forum can ask for more that would help.
Yes I agree about the motor thing.  "They" don't like to see motors running with no input.  If you have a battery in there or something plugged into the wall, I guess that's ok.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 18, 2019, 03:52:27 PM
Rick, 

I already wrote I do not participate in your games. You are the actor on a stage you create in your posts and you
play your role you think as best fit for a goal. 
But I remain in the audience (here the reader) section and will thank and applaud you if you show extra output with
measurements. If you do not show it, then I will not applaud you and would say it was a bad performance and will
certainly not be interested in your kits. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 18, 2019, 09:16:51 PM
Gyula,
This would all be a humorous game if there wasn't so many people negatively impacted by practices I am exposing in these several postings. But many people are lead to believe that they can really evaluate a claim, for or against, through a forum that exclusively reveals matters by words, pictures and videos. This is a major mistake as anyone familiar with real scientific studies knows. Your problem is that you moved beyond hypothesis level considerations to actually assuming things presented were to be believed, this that could easily have had several mistakes or otherwise, and you made conclusions for and against claims that cannot be honestly believed under the circumstances we are in in a forum. You toyed with the point I was making but you could not admit it as it ruins this game you engage in here.

Now you use the word actor. Well an actor is an hypocrite. They play a part that is not who they are. They act one way and live another. They profess one thing but do another. You professed to believe that a circuit may give you what people are after on this forum, but you refused to clarify at all what you meant. But you manifestly based all your analysis of a system upon "power" measurements so you prevent yourself from ever experiencing the benefits of most of the real systems presented in this forum. You refused to specifically and plainly respond to my question about whether there can ever be a gain in resonance. Your response was typical mainstream over-simplistic answer that still would go over many people's heads here. I tried to corner you out of your ambiguous hiding places and press you to come clean with everyone specifically about what you believe because I found you attempting to help people that appear to be open to over unity but who probably assumed you were as well. In the end we can see that you were really here to believe in anything that disproved an over unity claim. So this looks like the actor to me: who plays a part that convinces people of the character.

Even in your last statement you still keep assuming that somehow someone can actually "show extra energy output with measurements" through this forum. You couldn't explain why showing anything ought to convince anyone of any claim other than doing that in real life? It is a fantasy world that you live in and that is the world of actors (hypocrites) that imagines the cyber world to be the real world. I guess people can really get lost in their computers and video games and lose themselves as you have. Again, you say "If you do not show it" you will still make a judgement against me as if you can rightfully evaluate anything over the forum. My friend, I have show these things to real people for 15 years! But I don't play the fantasy forum games in trying to trick people into thinking that they should believe anything through words, videos, or pictures. Not only have I done many meetings all over the place where people could ride in boats (as there were two boats) and other vehicles but also numerous other setups where nothing was hidden. My point is to show people how to show themselves. Why do you so condemn this recommendation of real-world verification and insist upon cyber fantasy beliefs? I have also provided kits for people who asked for such, so that they could easily verify for themselves the hypothetical claims of others on these forums. I am not pushing my kits. The resonance kit does not make me any money and I do it merely to help people. It has been very rewarding to see the response however. I did not want my stuff to be mentioned on these forums and even told the one guy not to bother. But once I saw this here I realized that everything was chaos in all the assumptions being made. Somehow my kit was being judged because of someone else with different parts trying to similar things. I found that not only were there differences in the parts but also in various assumptions that affected the testing itself. Also, there was no way to evaluate many of the local environment or matters behind the scenes. Yet you were right there assuming that any report given was to be believed even though you were not physically present to see everything. This in itself was bad enough, but then we all learn that you do not even believe resonance can produce a real gain, and so your involvement displayed a manifest attempt to disprove the first claim on this subject. Furthermore, in contradiction with yourself, you displayed how willing you were to believe an unverifiable demonstration (that used different parts, etc.) but then you were not willing to believe an opposite claim. My method of exposing your hypocrisy in that point was deliberate to press the point for everyone to see. In the end, you proved my point that you should not believe (under the circumstances) claims for or against something that is revealed in word, video or pictures. You selectively believed a negative report and chose to disbelieve a positive report according to your bias. Perhaps many did just the opposite and that is just as wrong to do. So my video was a sort of test along those lines. These may sound like games to you but they are instead illustrations that reveal the games other people like you are playing. I know you understand exactly everything I am saying here, but I am sad that you cannot admit your error or answers the vital questions unambiguously. It is also sad that you equate all of my motives as being a game and cannot see any importance in building a proper scientific and real foundation in which to properly evaluate claims. This is highly unusual for skeptics and even with people of any training. I can imagine the hobbyist doing that but you do not make sense doing this. I cannot help you or anyone who just want's to assume without justification.

Rick, 
I already wrote I do not participate in your games. You are the actor on a stage you create in your posts and you play your role you think as best fit for a goal. 
But I remain in the audience (here the reader) section and will thank and applaud you if you show extra output with measurements. If you do not show it, then I will not applaud you and would say it was a bad performance and will certainly not be interested in your kits. 
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 18, 2019, 09:41:41 PM
For everyone else, this does not make online commination useless for this research. This just shows you the limitations and conditions under these circumstances. We need to be accountable for our positive and negative judgments or we will be mistaken very often. This would be a perfect world if everyone stopped assuming in this way in all matters of life. Forums can be useful places to exchange ideas that are humbly presented as hypotheses and where people do not just believe what people say or show through pictures or videos. What you can assume is that there may be always room to learn more (and some of that more is mistakes in the claim or demo, or even fakery). But unless we are clear on these things people will waste so much time, money, and faith upon things they see in the unreal world of cyberland, things they believe or disbelieve without sufficient reason. Good and true claims are dismissed because they have been debunked by Mythbusters (even when they didn't have magnets on a magnet motor!). So this goes both ways.

The same sort of things and assumptions and games happened on the Energenics forum with the Don Smith Too good to be true thread. It was very dramatic. Early on you see Paul show up as all optimistic about Don and he gathers a group of guys together that over the years appear to try and replicate something. Eventually we get revelations from Paul that is supposedly primary source material about Don. We later learn that Bruce Perrault is feeding him the info from his 2001 video meeting. Now Bruce repeatedly and manifestly promoted Don and his tech as actually doing what he said (that's even caught on video). So everyone is excited that maybe they can get somewhere with Don's stuff. This progresses on until at some point Paul starts reversing. Now since this is happening over years you miss the trick unless you read through everything at once as I did. Eventually he starts sowing doubt until he comes right out and says there is nothing at all in Don Smith (as if that was even possible to do when he covered so many things that we know to be true). So how did this game work? Several different ways. First you appear to be a seeker. Then you assume that you can disprove something by claiming to not be able to replicate it with a team of people. Then you make yourself part of the inside so that people have even more confidence in you. Then you say, from the inside, that it was all a fraud. Naturally people will just think Don was busted because if these guys concluded that way then who am I to know better? The problem was that Bruce knew it was true for many years, and he was also working with guys in a private forum developing the same technology. So do you believe 2000 to 2010 Bruce or do you believe the latest Bruce? And who can even verify if it is the same person? I was only contacted by email. In the end they gave an out of context email as their entire argument against Don and they succeeded in turning thousands of people away from Don's revelations. So these games are played in many ways, which I have been carefully observing from the beginning of the internet. Don't believe the hype whether it is positive or negative. Don't assume things are as they appear in cyberworld. Some of these people who attempt to disprove things are merely trying to keep the technology to themselves. Bruce, if that really was him, wrote to me repeatedly over a year, just like Bedini complained, that no one was worthy of 'his' technology and that they would not get it because he was not going to give it. So all the claim against Don was a big lie to keep the tech in.

Now I decided to do some investigation a few years back while this was going on (after the fact on that forum however). So while I was in supposed communications with Bruce I contacted Paul. They invited me into this private radionics forum and were excited for me to share after I had replicated Carlos Benitez. But when I carefully confronted them individually about Don I figured out what was going on. In the end they tried to even tell me that there was nothing in Don even though they were doing the same systems and inviting me into their little group (which was extremely messed up in the occult btw--crazy stuff). When I let them say enough I asked them separately, how can you claim that Don's systems were all fake or fundamentally mistaken when you promote Benitez as a real system? For Don's system they say they were trying to replicate (and which they had their own working systems with long antennas) on the forum was merely the Benitez final patent as I explained in my video a few years back. Ed Gray was essentially the same as well. This is a very easy thing to do, and in a way we are partly doing that in my kit. So these guys deflected the answer and deceived the public about Don.

Now, I have replicated many of Don's systems (some of which I show and teach on at my meetings), and I bring this up as this Resonance Induction Coupler Kit was where Don first learned about over unity and is where he directed people to start with. That was why I started there in this teaching (I improved and added a whole book to the kit). Then I did the Don Smith book after Don's friend Alex passed on the first videos and extra material. My point in bringing this up is to illustrate how people can pretend to be something else on forums. All these things I also only say because you can actually verify them yourself. You can read how people contradict themselves and you can evaluate any claim by personally testing it out (provided you really know what you are doing, which is another subject...). Now I care little about what people think about me as I am no one important. But I think Don was very important to consider and that is why I mention this stuff. You see all these claims, and our evaluations of them, are in a specific dramatic context that is real or pretend history. And depending on how careful you are in your judgments and assumptions you will either walk the wide road and miss important things and maybe believe a whole bunch of lies, or walk the narrow road and enjoy the good fruits of those who planted the trees before you.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 18, 2019, 09:53:41 PM
  Itsu:
2 points immediately spring to mind.  By using supercaps you are missing the Heavyside component  I would first try it with batteries and analyse the result over several hours if not days.
Secondly you are  not getting the energy from the electrons in the ground.  It is a hard concept to understand that the ground can replicate to and add to some extent the energy you already have.


Then we have to exclude mains bleed, because these circuits can pick up energy from your house mains wiring.
You also have to mess with the positioning of the coils because the magnetic fields emanating from the coils can reduce the input draw  as I have experienced.


Anyway I will look at your video in due course.

Additionally you should move your coils away from the tX coil.  The way I understand it is like this:
If the satellite coils are almost touching the TX coil then it acts like a normal transformer.
If you move them out say 5 to 10 cm out  then the device acts like the Don Smith setup and you can duplicate the energy.
Also adding an earth ground  amplifies the energy.


This is what we are trying to prove.

A.king21.

thanks for the advice, but i don't buy (yet) that "By using supercaps you are missing the Heavyside component".
It can take days or even weeks with batteries to see some effect.

I tried putting the satellite coils further away from the big coil, but it does not matter much.
The supercap voltage still drops.

Also adding an earth ground to the top or bottom of the big coil does not do much other then the need to retune.

The supercap stack voltage still steady drops.

Please show us positive results using your setup so people are stimulated to experiment for them self.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stivep on June 18, 2019, 10:35:53 PM
The  title is misleading.
There is no OVERUNITY never existed  and  will  never exist.
apart from effect of refrigeration systems where   we can go "over unity"
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-cop-of-refrigerator-is-greater-than-1 (https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-cop-of-refrigerator-is-greater-than-1)
that is nothing out there.

That is why theory is needed for any practical  device   showing energy on output grater  than energy delivered.
The statement here is that such systems  dont exists and never existed.
Yes....
You see it in the device ...
But that is the energy that is  coupled to the device  and converted to  form of energy  that you are able to  observe.

The  lack of understanding but all of that< seek to attain > or accomplish  practical designs,  comes from  believe not from scientific  facts .
I  was  in freedom to  share 80% of  information    about energy  extraction of Schumann Waveguide
another 20% belongs to dr Hans. and he  may   agree  to share it with the audience.
However I was ask  to prove, that  Dr. Hans skepticism  is unfounded.
And till  now  he  was  right.
Crowd is  not interested even in working concept if it drives them to  unfamiliar area.
In the  same time Viziv is going well with its billions dollars from Chevron.

It's  a  shame but  to seek to attain or accomplish, or trying to beat the bushes  over public interest ...one  must have 
at least some crowd  near by "brain ready" to act.

Quote
Dr Hans:
Who  you   want to tell it? Who is willing to act upon?
A  house wife?
A construction guy?
A  car mechanic?
An  electrician?
The last one,  if he emigrated from  eastern Europe, where education was  not unidirectional like in EU or USA  ..yes he  is  the right guy.
So no surprise that most of these guys  are  experimenting  out there.
The key to success is deficit.
Wealth and comfort is  only making people  to buy and  replace.
So    Viziv is  working  checked, proven  and  financed now  - at this very moment.
Viziv is the key to understand not only  phenomena  of  using earth to send  electrical energy from point A to B.
Viziv technology is the key to your real  Free Energy.

Surface wave in the Interface  is basic  knowledge   for you to go than ... to Schuman  Waveguide energy extraction .
And that energy is  manifested  in the interface in  form  of Zenneck  Wave  .
That energy comes  from natural  energy fluctuation inside of the Schumann Waveguide, but by its properties   it does not differ from
man  made surface  wave

The  very much  disappointing fact  :
That what I'm talking  you  about,
is the most proven  - both  scientifically  and  practically
and yet nobody is  willing to  check it  out.



Wesley



 


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stivep on June 18, 2019, 10:44:48 PM
..
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 18, 2019, 10:51:50 PM
Wesley,
I'm having trouble understanding your context and some of what you say. Did you type this on a phone or use a translator? Not sure how I can check something out as you urge when I have no idea what you are talking about.
Rick

The  title is misleading.
There is no OVERUNITY never existed  and  will  never exist.
apart from effect of refrigeration systems where   we can go "over unity"
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-cop-of-refrigerator-is-greater-than-1 (https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-cop-of-refrigerator-is-greater-than-1)
that is nothing out there.

That is why theory is needed for any practical  device   showing energy on output grater  than energy delivered.
The statement here is that such systems  dont exists and never existed.
Yes....
You see it in the device ...
But that is the energy that is  coupled to the device  and converted to  form of energy  that you are able to  observe.

The  lack of understanding but all of that< seek to attain > or accomplish  practical designs,  comes from  believe not from scientific  facts .
I  was  in freedom to  share 80% of  information    about energy  extraction of Schumann Waveguide
another 20% belongs to dr Hans. and he  may   agree  to share it with the audience.
However I was ask  to prove, that  Dr. Hans skepticism  is unfounded.
And till  now  he  was  right.
Crowd is  not interested even in working concept if it drives them to  unfamiliar area.
In the  same time Viziv is going well with its billions dollars from Chevron.

It's  a  shame but  to seek to attain or accomplish, or trying to beat the bushes  over public interest ...one  must have 
at least some crowd  near by "brain ready" to act.
So    Viziv is  working  checked, proven  and  financed now  - at this very moment.
Viziv is the key to understand not only  phenomena  of  using earth to send  electrical energy from point A to B.
Viziv technology is the key to your real  Free Energy.

Surface wave in the Interface  is basic  knowledge   for you to go than ... to Schuman  Waveguide energy extraction .
And that energy is  manifested  in the interface in  form  of Zenneck  Wave  .
That energy comes  from natural  energy fluctuation inside of the Schumann Waveguide, but by its properties   it does not differ from
man  made surface  wave

The  very much  disappointing fact  :
That what I'm talking  you  about,
is the most proven  - both  scientifically  and  practically
and yet nobody is  willing to  check it  out.



Wesley
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stivep on June 18, 2019, 11:33:09 PM
You absolutely right.
My English  is perfectly  good
But You  have no idea  what I'm  talking    about.


For a very first time individuals trying to understand what is what;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE4GjB1cWLQ&t=2s
The Slave of the Future ( Kapanadze FE explained ) Part1

Try to watch it  few times. Each time you will find more.
Story starts in year 2024 than   it goes back to year 2019
It is 4K quality so  on the  right  side of the YouTube frame change resolution to 4K



And for 10months  everything is in My  own forum
Wesley's  Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum-also  known  as Notebook or Wesley's  Notebook

Everything is there  and people don't know about it.
It is  Kapanadze but in so  much  exotic form that they simply don't want to go there.

Here  is  the  list of applications  I  was  involved with:
https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg535421/#msg535421 (https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg535421/#msg535421)

Here is first part of practical guide to Energy extraction from Schumann  Waveguide( please  read few more posts)
https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg535174/#msg535174 (https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg535174/#msg535174)

Here is video that I have made  for people  like you  who have never been  introduced  to it.
Quote
Remark#2
It is crucial  to understand    this  video  before part 2 is  published.
I suggest to watch  it few times -(portion   with graphical  explanation of it.) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE4GjB1cWLQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE4GjB1cWLQ)


Here is  explanation  why most of experiments  with Kapanadze, Akula,Ruslan failed 
https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg534323/#msg534323 (https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg534323/#msg534323)

Here it is the unfortunate consequence of  success  in this  field
https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg533398/#msg533398 (https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg533398/#msg533398)

Here  is set of links of Viziv  who is making patents like crazy now ( around one patent application per week)
1.supporting material to my previous video.
I suggest  to do not watch  it as it  will make  much  more difficult for you, to understand the concept-  unless you take it lightly.
this video should  be  watched as the  last  one.
 https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg532548/#msg532548 (https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg532548/#msg532548)
https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg532316/#msg532316 (https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg532316/#msg532316)

Here you have more heavy stuff:
https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg531915/#msg531915 (https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg531915/#msg531915)
but that gives  you a lot.

Here you have picture of experimental  tower  you can  build.
https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg530922/#msg530922 (https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg530922/#msg530922)

and here is original FCC license  James  Corum  was  experimenting with that is corresponding to to the picture
from above link
https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=180909&x= (https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=180909&x=).


Wesley
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 19, 2019, 12:09:21 AM
I know because I have emails from you. This makes more sense.
I have been invited to look at these things from various people that know you but I haven't had the time. Can you give me (and us) an overview of where you and associated people are at with all this? Are you powering anything? Making products? Where are you going with this? Are you looking for confirmation of these things on this tread?

You absolutely right.
My English  is perfectly  good
Wesley
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: stivep on June 19, 2019, 12:26:33 AM
Can you give me (and us) an overview of where you and associated people are at with all this?
Are you powering anything?
Making products?
Where are you going with this?
Are you looking for confirmation of these things on this tread?
Nothing of that.
I have made very much clear  what my  intentions are.
Please go to:
Re: Wesley's  Kapanadze and other FE discussion forum (https://overunity.com/17735/wesleys-kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion-forum/msg535174/#msg535174)
And  read my Reasoning section.
I don't need money, fame, confirmation, nor sale,
I'm associated with myself and few friends in science.
this  link was to  Part#1

Note: Part#2 is to be published

Wesley
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on June 19, 2019, 07:49:16 AM
All coils are tuned to 180Khz resonance frequency.


Hi Itsu
As far as i know, DS was "banging" wires at their self resonant frequency. Meaning that we speak about tenths of MHz at least. By "eye" calculation of his device with the satellite coils, we speak about a frequency between 5 and 30MHz as a carrier frequency. IMHO, AM also might be of an advantage as someone can tune (diode demodulation) to the lower frequency information that the carrier is loaded.

Regards 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 19, 2019, 10:15:25 AM

Hi Jeg,

yes, i think looking at that DS fantasy device it probably was doing something in that 5 to 30Mhz range if
doing anything at all.

But the device or setup i am trying to replicate here seems to be working around 180Khz, so thats the frequency
i am tuning my coils to.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 19, 2019, 04:06:02 PM
Hi Jeg,

yes, i think looking at that DS fantasy device it probably was doing something in that 5 to 30Mhz range if
doing anything at all.

But the device or setup i am trying to replicate here seems to be working around 180Khz, so thats the frequency
i am tuning my coils to.

Itsu
So lets get this right your trying to replicate DS's system ?  :o 8) ;D so what are you using for his SG and ramp circuit ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 20, 2019, 05:53:16 AM
Free energy exists:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtJhI4Cx5oc&list=PL_cJ8k_C3XEWi9IrA7dKse0vo8SE6J1oJ&index=5
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 20, 2019, 08:03:47 AM
While I have promoted Dr. Judy Wood as someone who has made some very good observations about what really happened structurally to the towers on 9/11, I feel that her zeal to equate it with this free energy research does none of us in this research any good. Hey look everyone, there is nothing different in getting free energy and turning 1,000,000 tons of buildings into dust! I think the linking of these two unpopular ideas doesn't help us, and was beyond the scope of her book. That will only be making a case why this research should be forbidden. This is really a mistake to use free energy claims in the context of such evil destruction when the idea of free energy is some kind of a useful gain.

You are not recommending we do a replication of that for confirmation are you???

My other concern with Wood's is her promotion of John Hutchison considering his work with the government with the Hutchison effect. She explains that it was this process that dustified the towers and created the effect that could melt metal while not burning paper (as seen in the world trade center Bible with melted metal around it on display--google image to see). The promotion of that specific work seems to be the same kind of error of the madness of Tesla in supposing a death ray machine could somehow be better for mankind because, of course, it would end all wars rather than destroy the world (because everyone in the world really loves each other and only wants the best for each other--especially those of the war machine and who profit from it).

Free energy exists:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtJhI4Cx5oc&list=PL_cJ8k_C3XEWi9IrA7dKse0vo8SE6J1oJ&index=5
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 20, 2019, 01:54:16 PM
While I have promoted Dr. Judy Wood as someone who has made some very good observations about what really happened structurally to the towers on 9/11, I feel that her zeal to equate it with this free energy research does none of us in this research any good. Hey look everyone, there is nothing different in getting free energy and turning 1,000,000 tons of buildings into dust! I think the linking of these two unpopular ideas doesn't help us, and was beyond the scope of her book. That will only be making a case why this research should be forbidden. This is really a mistake to use free energy claims in the context of such evil destruction when the idea of free energy is some kind of a useful gain.

You are not recommending we do a replication of that for confirmation are you???

My other concern with Wood's is her promotion of John Hutchison considering his work with the government with the Hutchison effect. She explains that it was this process that dustified the towers and created the effect that could melt metal while not burning paper (as seen in the world trade center Bible with melted metal around it on display--google image to see). The promotion of that specific work seems to be the same kind of error of the madness of Tesla in supposing a death ray machine could somehow be better for mankind because, of course, it would end all wars rather than destroy the world (because everyone in the world really loves each other and only wants the best for each other--especially those of the war machine and who profit from it).
Well thank you Meredith. First i'm not sure you really know all the facts and unless you do I would suggest you don't as your out of your depth on this one, and this is really getting off topic, perhaps we should also discus extermination and genocide of the native americans and the controlling few that deliberately infected a large portion of its people with a sexualy transmited disease, don't you think. America isn't a country it's a militarized barbaric privately owned junta that needs to change it's ways.
G feel free to erase this rant post
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on June 20, 2019, 03:17:58 PM
AG
 your indictments against the average citizens who inhabit various places on the globe ,and holding them accountable for the actions of the people who they are subject to [their governments]

truly have no place here.nor in any sane conversation.....
besides this is Ricks topic ATM

Chet K  PS and Grum has limited time to "clean up others messes"
Please remove this one too Grum.... :-[

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 20, 2019, 05:16:52 PM
AG, I'm not really sure how to read you here. I didn't bring this up, and if you actually read what I wrote you would see that I am saying that it was bad thing to try and link free energy research with what happened in 9/11. Also that I'm not seeing the reason to bring it up here where people are wanting to replicate something. a.king21 brought this up. I'm not out of my depth here either and I am fully aware of all the genocide various countries are guilty of. I have been a voice against such evils all my life. While it may be true that such things have/are happening even your mistaken reaction ends up being an off-topic rant. I was just trying to draw attention to that with a.king21's post myself. Lighten up will you? Take some time to read what people say and not just react against them for some other reason.

Well thank you Meredith. First i'm not sure you really know all the facts and unless you do I would suggest you don't as your out of your depth on this one, and this is really getting off topic, perhaps we should also discus extermination and genocide of the native americans and the controlling few that deliberately infected a large portion of its people with a sexualy transmited disease, don't you think. America isn't a country it's a militarized barbaric privately owned junta that needs to change it's ways.
G feel free to erase this rant post
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 20, 2019, 05:47:22 PM
Sorry for apparently going off topic.  The only reason I brought it up is to remind us that there are obvious ways to see that excess energy can be seen.  So if experimenters have not seen excess energy yet it does not mean that it is not there. It just means that the experiment is not right.


If my understanding is correct I think you need about 10 coils correctly positioned to get a phase lock using Rick's kt with the 180 khz design. The OU would not come from electrical connections the conventional way, but from the magnetic fields interacting in a resonant way.
This is why it is sometimes inappropriate to follow the directions of people who do not do these experiments and quote from EE books.
Conventional electrical science knows nothing about magnetic resonance  as Walter Lewin of MIT has proved. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 20, 2019, 06:10:31 PM
Sorry for apparently going off topic.  The only reason I brought it up is to remind us that there are obvious ways to see that excess energy can be seen.  So if experimenters have not seen excess energy yet it does not mean that it is not there. It just means that the experiment is not right.


If my understanding is correct I think you need about 10 coils correctly positioned to get a phase lock using Rick's kt with the 180 khz design. The OU would not come from electrical connections the conventional way, but from the magnetic fields interacting in a resonant way.
This is why it is sometimes inappropriate to follow the directions of people who do not do these experiments and quote from EE books.
Conventional electrical science knows nothing about magnetic resonance  as Walter Lewin of MIT has proved.
Well there must be a good few who do in Lithuania and a good few of the Russian speaking countries in fact there is a guy the 'master' who demonstrates it, alas he offers no circuit diagrams but explains any wire with current flowing in it can produce a 'pinch' effect' when driven by a pulse, he also says while your generating your magnetic field it kills the effect Nick Z talks about.
So sounds like you need to experiment, in some of the DS vids he shows a tiny neon spark gap, does that really work ??
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 20, 2019, 08:26:34 PM
The reason why I give long videos and postings is to avoid misunderstandings. Tensions are high here as they easily get on forums on important subjects. Hopefully we can avoid giving knee-jerk reactions or fostering the same.
I'm not really sure that it would be evident to people, especially when most would not even think the technology is possible, that there was some free energy or overly efficient process in dustifying the towers. The reaction I get from people is that they think a lot of energy must have been used to do that. Even though it doesn't take much energy to do such things it really is a problematic example/analogy as it takes a good deal of work to investigate this in order to come to the conclusions Dr. Wood came to. I think people can fairly easily come to see that some very unusual things happened that day, but it is not as easy to determine exactly what, especially how much energy it would take.
As for my 180Khz bigger coil demo, this was just me making a random coil that was almost equal lengthwise with width which results in good Q. Then I just matched up suitable caps for it and the regular kit coils so they could run at the same frequency. As there are not a whole lot of options in the nanofarads I chose 5nF for the small coil which resulted in a resonant frequency of around 180kHz. And the big coil turned out to have exactly 2mH inductance with 123 turns around a 6" pvc connector (thin walled one). I found 351pf @ 186kHz = 5000+V while input was 18V varying the power from 30 to 260ma. Tuning it to match the smaller coils resonant frequency brought the circulating voltage to around 4500V. I used a high quality variable capacitor for this. This showed that there is sort of a sweet spot of frequency/cap values even though you can have almost endless combinations. But as this gave satisfactory results I decided to use it as a transmitter and demonstrated last year and this year in Canada as well as on video. I did 4 public demonstrations, and one of the last ones was before hundreds of people at a large expo in Indiana. There I showed this setup with around 10 coils around this transmitter that was loaded with ferrite coils and their loads until I brought the power supply down to 4ma @ less than 3V. And it was easy to show everyone the difference between running just one bulb at that power level compared to all the other bulbs being powered by the process.
Anyway, as lower frequency is less of a gain than higher frequency, and as I really didn't want two sets of capacitors for the kit, I decided to make a more suitable bigger coil and transmitter for the next meetings the other week in NC. So I made the coils having the same inductance as the kit coils so the same caps could be used and then we could have the same 1.2 or so Mhz frequency.
The 180Mhz coil does not require 10 coils to do the phase mirroring effect, it would only require one additional coil if properly positioned to be in the right phasing relationship. That would be more of a Don Smith system with an internal coil, or external one around the primary. Don's goal wasn't to do that (power the primary or transmitter directly and so a greater potential available) but to do that indirectly by a 1/4 wave influence upon the battery wires going to the oscillator itself. Everyone is all fixated on making a self-runner a certain way, usually trying to push amps into the input, that they almost always miss what is far more important. Worry about those things after you get the core process down.
As for it being the magnetic fields or the capacitance fluxing, or both, it is not easy to figure out for yourself exactly...
Yeah, it isn't wise to follow people who are in cyberland and could be anyone. Who makes anyone an authority? What science authority is someone we should absolutely trust?
I would again disagree, conventional science knows a lot about magnetic resonance as we can see in the MRI technology. These are far too sweeping statements. Notice I never said that. I said "mainstream" floating theory/agenda contradicts itself and ignores what conventional science knows and practices in reference to these matters in relation to free energy processes. Conventional science does in fact use these processes daily and develops it quite extensively. And these kinds of sweeping generalizations on these forums create the wrong impression that it is otherwise. Therefore it has been a hobby of mine to notice as many places and examples I can of where this occurs. Again, it is not as though these processes are not understood, believed, or practiced in real commercial products that many engineers work on daily, but rather that they are not working on such in the context of producing free electrical generation. That is the slight of hand trick upon everyone. Does anyone get this point??? Thousands of patents are granted that use the very processes (which I organize as themes) to produce OU results so long as they are not overtly claiming OU in electrical power generation, and are in relation to optics or for something else. So, to create the impression that no one ever sees these processes when they do, really confuses the debate and problem that actually exists. It is not that people do not experience these things all the time, but that they don't realize the full extent of what is implied in these processes. The engineer hired to suppress the negative spike from the inductor does actually have an accurate real-world mathematics in his nonlinear software simulators that will accurately predict the responses in the real-world. The problem is that he is not hired to use this problematic phenomena but to eliminate it. It is a bad thing to kill, and thus the pun of "negative" energy. Now sometimes the do use it in a positive way, but that is another story. If they were hired to research the most with this that could be done, then they would find those of use who have been doing this for years. And indeed that often happens where we find such engineers knocking on our doors.

So you can see that because of these kinds of sweeping statements throughout these forums that there is even more tensions between people like G and myself when there doesn't need to be. One side overstates their position and misunderstands what is happening in the real commercial world of technology, and then the other side reacts and assumes that such people have no idea what they are talking about. So there is no real communication between these waring parties. No real attempt to understand each other and what each other actually believe or experiences. This does us no good. We must be careful not to oversimplify matters just as much as me must be careful not to over-complicate matters.

As for AG, I'm still not really understanding your context from your words. Maybe take a little more time to specify what you are staying. While it is true that you can get excess energy out of the external environment around any wire passing any current, it may not be worth the effort in parts/collectors/converters to process that gain. On the other hand it is worthy of doing with any high frequency transmission line, or any transmission line that is being impulsed very sharply. The former is the idea I often demonstrate at my meetings as showing the Don Smith dipole system where we tap the Heaviside flow. The latter is where we deal with the Tesla one wire system as partly illustrated with the wrongly called hairpin circuit but which is more fully expanded upon in figure 5 in The True Wireless paper. This I have been showing in my third stage process (black box) for many years now, and which Bedini taught about rightly in DVD7.
Yes some of these processes the magnetic kills the effect.
So I guess people need to experiment and learn these things. Lots of talk. Plenty of sensational videos and claims, but unless we personally experience these things then what does it matter?
Rick

a.king21 wrote: "Sorry for apparently going off topic.  The only reason I brought it up is to remind us that there are obvious ways to see that excess energy can be seen.  So if experimenters have not seen excess energy yet it does not mean that it is not there. It just means that the experiment is not right.
If my understanding is correct I think you need about 10 coils correctly positioned to get a phase lock using Rick's kt with the 180 khz design. The OU would not come from electrical connections the conventional way, but from the magnetic fields interacting in a resonant way.
This is why it is sometimes inappropriate to follow the directions of people who do not do these experiments and quote from EE books.
Conventional electrical science knows nothing about magnetic resonance  as Walter Lewin of MIT has proved."

AG response:
Well there must be a good few who do in Lithuania and a good few of the Russian speaking countries in fact there is a guy the 'master' who demonstrates it, alas he offers no circuit diagrams but explains any wire with current flowing in it can produce a 'pinch' effect' when driven by a pulse, he also says while your generating your magnetic field it kills the effect Nick Z talks about.
So sounds like you need to experiment, in some of the DS vids he shows a tiny neon spark gap, does that really work ??
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 20, 2019, 09:22:56 PM

The reply editing window is so small it’s useless when editing Rick’s manuscripts!


As for my 180Khz bigger coil demo, this was just me making a random coil that was almost equal lengthwise with width which results in good Q.

I don’t know if you have noticed but some frequencies yield different amplitudes and are more audio pleasing and are considered in tune with the planet and universe or is it to just some humans I say this as the Nazis didn’t like bas 9 ie 432 and changed it to 440hz witch is base 8 witch is demonically oppressive.  You might have noticed DS device he said he used 31kh5 this is a base 9 frequency.
=======

Yeah, it isn't wise to follow people who are in cyberland and could be anyone. Who makes anyone an authority? What science authority is someone we should absolutely trust?

Well that depends some what if they are a ‘cyber-man or not, aren’t you in cyberland?
And it realy depends on if that some one in cyberland is in sync with what’s going on about what’s missing and then there is always experimentation.
 

As for AG, I'm still not really understanding your context from your words. Maybe take a little more time to specify what you are staying. While it is true that you can get excess energy out of the external environment around any wire passing any current, it may not be worth the effort in parts/collectors/converters to process that gain. On the other hand it is worthy of doing with any high frequency transmission line, or any transmission line that is being impulsed very sharply. The former is the idea I often demonstrate at my meetings as showing the Don Smith dipole system where we tap the Heaviside flow. The latter is where we deal with the Tesla one wire system as partly illustrated with the wrongly called hairpin circuit but which is more fully expanded upon in figure 5 in The True Wireless paper. This I have been showing in my third stage process (black box) for many years now, and which Bedini taught about rightly in DVD7.
Yes some of these processes the magnetic kills the effect.
So I guess people need to experiment and learn these things. Lots of talk. Plenty of sensational videos and claims, but unless we personally experience these things then what does it matter?
Because it does matter, is it the fact that a capacitor is charged with dielectric energy It takes time known as the rise time, but dielectric energy is fast perhaps even longitudinal energy.
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 20, 2019, 09:59:02 PM
Hello Rick,


I did pay attention to DVD7 when it came out and did quite a few experiments with solid state SG's and coils in series but didn't have much success back then, then I went on to work on other things. But resonance has always fascinated me.
In such a one wire setup, isn't there a limit as to how many resonant coils you can put in series? I mean, say you have HV cap as a source dipole and you switch it with abrupt impulses to your line with the correct frequency to resonate all the series coils in the line. Say the caps voltage is 1000V. This voltage would get divided  by the number of resonant series coils in the line. So, if you have 10 coils, each would be a resonating node at 100V max, right? But maybe you could put more resonant coils in parallel with each series coil?


Also, to get the power out of each coil, I don't think the way shown in DVD7 is a good method since putting the load (lamp or FWBR to cap) in parallel with the resonant coil as shown would hinder or greatly reduce resonance. Wouldn't a resonant coil with a step down secondary be much better? Or a series bifilar resonant coil with a low impedance load in the middle (the coils internal series connection). These are just some thoughts as I wouldn't mind give it another go, but I was wondering what your opinion is about these points.


thanks,
Mario



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 20, 2019, 11:51:33 PM
Haha, it's funny as my most significant work is with manuscripts. I'm honored to have my words on here to be considered such  ;)
Well none of you can accuse me of taking sides as I will call anything what it is even with my friends.
Yes it is an important study to consider different frequencies in the way you mention. That is the same as my teaching about being very sensitive to understand your entire environment. Very small things can also have influences that people don't generally think of. Even our own bodies. I have no comment on your points however as I am very much in the fact gathering stage of that research but I am aware of what you mention.
My point applies to me as well. That was a major point I was trying to make, and also in the latest video. You can't trust anyone until certain things happen. Credibility is impossible to establish when it is entirely online. We all take a risk buying something online, but it is not much of a risk when we have insurance or credit cards that will give us our money back under certain conditions. When we buy products all the time from the same place then we trust it. Still, anything could happen and change things. When we meet someone in from cyber fantasy land in the real world (outside of the matrix haha) then it can make a difference. Sometimes we can meet people who have met people and more credibility is added. People in cyberland can establish credibility by teaching self-evident things and help people succeed. Talking on the phone is also sort of half-way has good as meeting someone in person. In regards to me, I think it is fairly obvious to everyone who I am in the circles. Pictures of me in real life big events with hundreds of people in association with my company convention events and with my products I have been selling since 2007. My public work goes back long before this as a publisher as well. None of this means much because anyone can be mistaken, and no one who is accessible is really an authority. I know people that are not accessible who have the knowledge and experience to be such. But in cyberworld it is almost a joke, and the chit chat is laughable by those in the know. Maybe Eric Dollard would be the best you could get, but he really isn't in cyberworld as he hates the digital. If I'm wrong someone list some worthy names. I'm certainly not one as I'm just am amateur hobbyist backyard mechanic philosopher. lol I can make these things work but I don't claim to know the exact nature of all the phenomena or have decided upon the correct math to represent it all.
Anyway, you just have to keep yourself from assumptions. Gather information as working hypothesis while evaluating what you think is most relevant. See for yourself. That's all I'm saying. Yes all these "persons of influence" that are set up on the forums to be people confirming or disproving people's claims may have powerful influence but it is actually a bad thing. This is just setting up another false authority. I have talked to many of these guys and ask them the pointed questions. They seem nice, and sometimes I actually meet them face to face in their den or mancave shop. Many of these guys have suckered well-meaning people into supporting them. So these guys get paid to entertain people like mythbusters. They use keywords effectively, and give out some useful information. But when I consider what they have done over years I find it fairly useless in regards to what people are really asking for and needing. So don't believe the hype. Don't follow the masses after people.

What matters? That we chat without ever having any real life experience? That is what I'm talking about. That is merely fantasy. I'm a realist and don't have time for fantasy.

Yes, what is dielectricity? Dollard makes some good points, and you can see that there will always be some mystery about it. Many things I do not expect to fully understand the nature or essence of. But we can find the characteristics and relationships that are predictable and repeatable. We just always have to avoid the "nothing buttery" reductionist fallacy. And that is my point, don't reduce something to one commonly used application of it. This is what happened from Maxwell on. Convenience and profit has created what we have now as "mainstream" practice and dogma. This is all just special pleading of a special case of the larger reality....


The reply editing window is so small it’s useless when editing Rick’s manuscripts!


As for my 180Khz bigger coil demo, this was just me making a random coil that was almost equal lengthwise with width which results in good Q.

I don’t know if you have noticed but some frequencies yield different amplitudes and are more audio pleasing and are considered in tune with the planet and universe or is it to just some humans I say this as the Nazis didn’t like bas 9 ie 432 and changed it to 440hz witch is base 8 witch is demonically oppressive.  You might have noticed DS device he said he used 31kh5 this is a base 9 frequency.
=======

Yeah, it isn't wise to follow people who are in cyberland and could be anyone. Who makes anyone an authority? What science authority is someone we should absolutely trust?

Well that depends some what if they are a ‘cyber-man or not, aren’t you in cyberland?
And it realy depends on if that some one in cyberland is in sync with what’s going on about what’s missing and then there is always experimentation.
 

As for AG, I'm still not really understanding your context from your words. Maybe take a little more time to specify what you are staying. While it is true that you can get excess energy out of the external environment around any wire passing any current, it may not be worth the effort in parts/collectors/converters to process that gain. On the other hand it is worthy of doing with any high frequency transmission line, or any transmission line that is being impulsed very sharply. The former is the idea I often demonstrate at my meetings as showing the Don Smith dipole system where we tap the Heaviside flow. The latter is where we deal with the Tesla one wire system as partly illustrated with the wrongly called hairpin circuit but which is more fully expanded upon in figure 5 in The True Wireless paper. This I have been showing in my third stage process (black box) for many years now, and which Bedini taught about rightly in DVD7.
Yes some of these processes the magnetic kills the effect.
So I guess people need to experiment and learn these things. Lots of talk. Plenty of sensational videos and claims, but unless we personally experience these things then what does it matter?
Because it does matter, is it the fact that a capacitor is charged with dielectric energy It takes time known as the rise time, but dielectric energy is fast perhaps even longitudinal energy.
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 21, 2019, 02:08:40 AM
Thanks Mario,
You have to take some time to properly understand what Tesla was doing. Unless we understand his system as completely different than AC and DC we will misunderstand how to do what he did.
When done right then you can keep on adding as John said. Again, I point you to the first three lectures and figure 5 of The True Wireless. Don't assume it is merely a coil in series. I show running many coils that were not even matched or in resonance (last meeting I showed 11 such random parts from my products) and yet they still substantially increase the output as well as send energy back to the input. You watch as each module with it's load causes the voltage across the transistor or fet to rise (until it exceeds the maximum SOA). I once saw that go as high as 5000V.
Now if you take the time to understand how Tesla's processes actually work in the single wire transfer then you will learn of all your options and that you can create many branches or single wire outputs from one prime mover. There is no limit to the network that can be associated. So maybe their start up another thread on the other forum Nick Tesla too good to be True. Or John Bedini too good to be true or to be noticed. Now in regards to what Bedini was doing, it was a negative impulse so it is not a mass thing. You are assuming otherwise that is why you think there has to be a limit. Those assumptions are why people didn't want to do negative energy engineering. So we only really gave out the battery as a load. Not me, as I gave it all to you over many years. I showed it with the batteries, and how you could get more out with bigger batteries. I showed it with transformers and inductors and all kinds of lights. I even showed this also on the trigger side. But I found that people didn't care, or at least they got what they needed and moved on. But the true negative unidirectional wave impulse tech was not really taught on these groups. As I mentioned, even Aaron's SSG 3 part manual had nothing of this because he either didn't know anything (which seems manifest, but I don't really know him to say), or he didn't want you all to know it. Tell me, could you really call anything else advanced SSG teaching? This is unlimited in output. What was advanced or intermediate in those books? There is one short thread on this DVD7 and you see they missed the teaching and also the sentence where John claims you can add as many as you want. Yet I think this was all just a game with John. Even with EFTV book, these kinds of things were only for inhouse people. For John it was that you had to earn it.
Your second paragraph misunderstands this process. You have to get beyond looking at Tesla one wire as some current thing with positive impedances.
Third paragraph again assumes same things. I think one thing these forums have shown after all these years is that you look at unique free energy processes with mainstream assumptions that you will dampen them and not get anything. Your understanding about these processes is all wrong. For example, if you do not have a load, and the right load, you will blow out the input. "Everything has to be in balance."
There are many different things you can do once you understand Tesla. Remember, Tesla's one wire was the entire globe (or disc if you are flat earther :o ) in some cases. Size is not a problem.
You do not have to have high frequency either. You can do very low frequency so long as you have a very fast rate of change. Then you have understand what matching impedances mean, along with matching loads. Not necessary but understanding the variety of options is helpful (which I have mentioned).
Now what we have been talking about with the resonance kits also is similar to this. Don Smith said that at radio frequency and above (say above 20cps) in resonance we have no resistive losses. So we can do the same sort of things with a series of parallel tank circuits rightly coupled. Some of my students have posted videos of doing just that with the coils in a similar way as I did with many coils without wire connections. Chapter 1 is two wire connections. Chapter 2 is Tesla's 1 wire (which is what I am referring to here) and chapter 3 is wireless transmission. So with suitable tuned circuits you can do the same sort of thing as we do with the motors with the negative impulsing. 

Now I'm not telling you to revisit this. It just so happens to be the most important thing that Bedini ever taught on and which all the present forums have missed. It just so happens that is the most important thing that Tesla taught on and is the key theme with many free energy systems. I have observed that people studied Tesla's work with AC and then they skip over the one wire work as if it is unnecessary because of his wireless work. But without the one wire teaching you will not understand his wireless.

Now this also relates to Don Smith's DSE or Don Smith Effect. He gave a very poorly written two pages on the subject years ago and made a comment at the end that it was "moron level" of understanding required. So it was funny the other day when two of my students had these things finally click and they boasted that they had finally arrived to the moron level  ::) ;D You see, they superficially understood the idea but all of a sudden it sank in and the "got it". And that's how it will be for everyone who finally gets it. It will not be a gradual learning more about it. It will just suddenly click as you realize how you have been looking at all this completely wrong. You have to remove your classes and all the assumption lenses and make one have a dielectric filter and the other have a magnetic filter so you can behold all this as it really is and not the way you have been trained to limit reality to be. Like all of a sudden seeing color when you only saw shades of grey. Like seeing 3D when you only understood 2D.

Hello Rick,
I did pay attention to DVD7 when it came out and did quite a few experiments with solid state SG's and coils in series but didn't have much success back then, then I went on to work on other things. But resonance has always fascinated me.
In such a one wire setup, isn't there a limit as to how many resonant coils you can put in series? I mean, say you have HV cap as a source dipole and you switch it with abrupt impulses to your line with the correct frequency to resonate all the series coils in the line. Say the caps voltage is 1000V. This voltage would get divided  by the number of resonant series coils in the line. So, if you have 10 coils, each would be a resonating node at 100V max, right? But maybe you could put more resonant coils in parallel with each series coil?
Also, to get the power out of each coil, I don't think the way shown in DVD7 is a good method since putting the load (lamp or FWBR to cap) in parallel with the resonant coil as shown would hinder or greatly reduce resonance. Wouldn't a resonant coil with a step down secondary be much better? Or a series bifilar resonant coil with a low impedance load in the middle (the coils internal series connection). These are just some thoughts as I wouldn't mind give it another go, but I was wondering what your opinion is about these points.
thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 21, 2019, 02:18:41 PM
Thanks Mario,
You have to take some time to properly understand what Tesla was doing. Unless we understand his system as completely different than AC and DC we will misunderstand how to do what he did.
When done right then you can keep on adding as John said. Again, I point you to the first three lectures and figure 5 of The True Wireless. Don't assume it is merely a coil in series. I show running many coils that were not even matched or in resonance (last meeting I showed 11 such random parts from my products) and yet they still substantially increase the output as well as send energy back to the input. You watch as each module with it's load causes the voltage across the transistor or fet to rise (until it exceeds the maximum SOA). I once saw that go as high as 5000V.
Now if you take the time to understand how Tesla's processes actually work in the single wire transfer then you will learn of all your options and that you can create many branches or single wire outputs from one prime mover. There is no limit to the network that can be associated. So maybe their start up another thread on the other forum Nick Tesla too good to be True. Or John Bedini too good to be true or to be noticed. Now in regards to what Bedini was doing, it was a negative impulse so it is not a mass thing. You are assuming otherwise that is why you think there has to be a limit. Those assumptions are why people didn't want to do negative energy engineering. So we only really gave out the battery as a load. Not me, as I gave it all to you over many years. I showed it with the batteries, and how you could get more out with bigger batteries. I showed it with transformers and inductors and all kinds of lights. I even showed this also on the trigger side. But I found that people didn't care, or at least they got what they needed and moved on. But the true negative unidirectional wave impulse tech was not really taught on these groups. As I mentioned, even Aaron's SSG 3 part manual had nothing of this because he either didn't know anything (which seems manifest, but I don't really know him to say), or he didn't want you all to know it. Tell me, could you really call anything else advanced SSG teaching? This is unlimited in output. What was advanced or intermediate in those books? There is one short thread on this DVD7 and you see they missed the teaching and also the sentence where John claims you can add as many as you want. Yet I think this was all just a game with John. Even with EFTV book, these kinds of things were only for inhouse people. For John it was that you had to earn it.
Your second paragraph misunderstands this process. You have to get beyond looking at Tesla one wire as some current thing with positive impedances.
Third paragraph again assumes same things. I think one thing these forums have shown after all these years is that you look at unique free energy processes with mainstream assumptions that you will dampen them and not get anything. Your understanding about these processes is all wrong. For example, if you do not have a load, and the right load, you will blow out the input. "Everything has to be in balance."
There are many different things you can do once you understand Tesla. Remember, Tesla's one wire was the entire globe (or disc if you are flat earther :o ) in some cases. Size is not a problem.
You do not have to have high frequency either. You can do very low frequency so long as you have a very fast rate of change. Then you have understand what matching impedances mean, along with matching loads. Not necessary but understanding the variety of options is helpful (which I have mentioned).
Now what we have been talking about with the resonance kits also is similar to this. Don Smith said that at radio frequency and above (say above 20cps) in resonance we have no resistive losses. So we can do the same sort of things with a series of parallel tank circuits rightly coupled. Some of my students have posted videos of doing just that with the coils in a similar way as I did with many coils without wire connections. Chapter 1 is two wire connections. Chapter 2 is Tesla's 1 wire (which is what I am referring to here) and chapter 3 is wireless transmission. So with suitable tuned circuits you can do the same sort of thing as we do with the motors with the negative impulsing. 

Now I'm not telling you to revisit this. It just so happens to be the most important thing that Bedini ever taught on and which all the present forums have missed. It just so happens that is the most important thing that Tesla taught on and is the key theme with many free energy systems. I have observed that people studied Tesla's work with AC and then they skip over the one wire work as if it is unnecessary because of his wireless work. But without the one wire teaching you will not understand his wireless.

Now this also relates to Don Smith's DSE or Don Smith Effect. He gave a very poorly written two pages on the subject years ago and made a comment at the end that it was "moron level" of understanding required. So it was funny the other day when two of my students had these things finally click and they boasted that they had finally arrived to the moron level  ::) ;D You see, they superficially understood the idea but all of a sudden it sank in and the "got it". And that's how it will be for everyone who finally gets it. It will not be a gradual learning more about it. It will just suddenly click as you realize how you have been looking at all this completely wrong. You have to remove your classes and all the assumption lenses and make one have a dielectric filter and the other have a magnetic filter so you can behold all this as it really is and not the way you have been trained to limit reality to be. Like all of a sudden seeing color when you only saw shades of grey. Like seeing 3D when you only understood 2D.
So don't under stand fig trees with monkeys in them cus we know what they are full off.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 21, 2019, 02:57:45 PM
This is either you trying to dismiss what I wrote as a joke and/or not being able to properly translate your words into English. Whatever it is, it is lost in translation  :o

So don't under stand fig trees with monkeys in them cus we know what they are full off.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on June 21, 2019, 04:06:30 PM
AG  instead of writing hieroglyphics and sideways insults perhaps you should allow those who are spending much time and effort here....the opportunity to continue...
insults and derogatory comments do nothing but drive people away...
but you already know that ?? 

Chet K
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on June 21, 2019, 04:24:29 PM
Ok. Let put it straight. I believe it is closely related to this info from Ruslan Kulabuhov. Comments ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on June 21, 2019, 04:25:59 PM
And the explanation why it may be related ....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 21, 2019, 05:31:46 PM
AG  instead of writing hieroglyphics and sideways insults perhaps you should allow those who are spending much time and effort here....the opportunity to continue...
insults and derogatory comments do nothing but drive people away...
but you already know that ?? 

Chet K
                                             WITH OUT PREJUDICE
Chet why would i want to do that Chet when Rick is already doing a perfectly respectable job him self with out my help.

Perhaps if Rick could explain what his agenda actually is here in this thread with out him telling us indirectly that we are dangerously irresponsible unless we invest in his kit? or is that one of the conditions of accessing this thread ?
and with out him coming back saying i'm delusional  ;D

 and it wasn't me who described Rick as Jesus handing out free fishes and loaves  :'(
 Jesus didn't exist before 1603 by King James.Instead of Yahsha
Kind regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 21, 2019, 05:53:07 PM
Hi Rick,


I think I get what Tesla was doing and explaining in the true wireless lecture. His magnifying transmitter (and receiver) is basically the same principle of a. in Fig.5. The earth is the same as the wire and the capacities of sender and receiver are acting like the expanding and contracting bag analogy of Fig.4., but the main transfer goes through the wire, or the earth. So, in a sense his wireless is a one wire system.
His method is superior to the hertzian method because he used a one wire connection (earth) and used resonance for maximising power sent, while the hertzian method only sends waves through the air which decay rapidly after short distance. 
Tesla was using/sending high freq. sinusoidal signals in this case, so no short impulses (except for the cap discharge into the primary of his magnifier but only to get more oscillations, not to send impulses), so I don't know why the association of the one method and short impulses, although impulses can of course trigger resonance just as well.
Tesla's one wire system has no return, The output of the SG in dvd7 are yes impulses but it has a return (to the main SG coil), this is why I see a limit in as how many series coils can be placed in the line, as opposed to an open wire. What John showed with added series coil and FWBR is an analogy to b. in Fig.5. but in John's case the coil is part of the wire to create a node, while the FWBR across it basically represents b. But still, the wire has a return.


Anyway, my goal is to charge as many batteries as possible from as little input as possible, and I wouldn't mind using the one wire technique.


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 21, 2019, 07:09:52 PM
AG, I don't care what you say or if you insult me. I don't take this forum or any forum too seriously as I see you don't either. You appeared to be asking real questions but it is manifest that you are just looking for fault. Obviously you don't understand how over unity processes work. I pointed that out that you are trying to look at this all the wrong way. You can't have more of the same my friend. Obviously we have to do something fundamentally different if we are going to have a gain. Maybe you don't believe in over unity and are just here to disprove? I don't know. But what does poking at me do?

I have shared everything anyone needs to know to get all the answers and free energy they could want. I never said you need to have my kits. Did I not say the opposite. I just said if you are trying to evaluate my kit then you would need to have the parts. But I did tell you the parts and values already and said you could make your own. But my point was also that you cannot prove or disprove anything over the Forum. I know that takes the steam out of many people drive and mission here. It's a reality check and that may be offensive to people who spew out their assumptions left and right.

Again, I do not make any money on the Resonance Kit and it is purely for helping people out. I gave a kid a job to make coils so it was also helping him out. So this is a lie that you are pushing here that you claim I am saying "we are dangerously irresponsible unless we invest in his kit".

I didn't say you were delusional, but I didn't understand your words because you either are using a translator or don't care to type words properly.

I think it is manifest to everyone that I have made significant contributions to the free energy community over the years that earn me some respect here. At least for people to realize significant facts shared that I have also shared with supporting evidence you can verify. I have not only made claims, I have demonstrated them in public after mentioning in advance on this forum. But now I have pointed to you where others have made similar claims and have taught on the subject. I pointed out what all of you missed in DVD7. And this I have demonstrated in the real world. I don't expect anyone to believe that, but it shows I am not talking about something that I invented or just made up. It is something I have shown you goes back to Tesla and others, in the one wire teaching. You can ignore Tesla's words and technology and merely look at it as early Tesla in AC. But then everyone will be asking YOU AG, why are YOU HERE if you are not at least open to Tesla's processes that are obviously fundamentally different than the mainstream approach you are taking to understanding it?

I came on here because one customer went against my advice to him about promoting my kit on these forums. He did that on two forums and I just decided to simply draw attention to the point that you cannot prove anything or disprove anything regarding claims on forums. And that I observed people were trying to do that in regards to my kit when someone was not even using the kit parts and didn't even have any instructions! I got responses and so I responded to them. I have been a member of this forum for many years. I know Stefan and he has often promoted me over the years. I don't think I have been out of place in any of this. Some of you may want me gone and that is fine with me.

As for your point about the KJV and Jesus, I am fully aware of your argument. But if the word Jesus is wrong or bad then Yahsha is too. There were no English letters back 2000 years ago. I know it is a sensitive subject and I have friends that consider the subject really import. I will not disrespect your religious convictions in the matter. I have my reasons for using the words I use, and that is to try and promote clear communication rather than insist upon theological language that people do not understand.

Anyway, I don't have any agenda but to help people. What would I get out of everything I say. I have given you guys several things that can make you energy independent and also millions of dollars if you care to take the time to experiment yourself. I have helped you avoid the mistakes people make in this research based on my observations of thousands of people for 15 years all over the world in this work.

I guess for those who don't want to actually prove to themselves matters the only thing to do is poke at people for fun. 

                                             WITH OUT PREJUDICE
Chet why would i want to do that Chet when Rick is already doing a perfectly respectable job him self with out my help.

Perhaps if Rick could explain what his agenda actually is here in this thread with out him telling us indirectly that we are dangerously irresponsible unless we invest in his kit? or is that one of the conditions of accessing this thread ?
and with out him coming back saying i'm delusional  ;D

 and it wasn't me who described Rick as Jesus handing out free fishes and loves  :'(
 Jesus didn't exist before 1603 by King James.Instead of Yahsha
Kind regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 21, 2019, 08:25:07 PM
Hi ever one, 

Rick' I don't watch much tv these days as once the adverts come on I like to wind the box on, if i haven't fallen asleep. Do you see my point here ? i'm not insulting you i'm just asking if you could highlight your useful points if it's not too much trouble.

Has any one got or produced a short form interpretation of Rick's useful info on here, i'm sure we would all be interested i know i would be.

kind regards AG

PS about 7 or 8 years back I  made a Newman motor with 2 fan cases and a pile of Neo's it's not all that brilliant but it amuses the cat watching the tape fly round on the brass fly wheel.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 21, 2019, 09:32:37 PM
Hi ever one, 

Rick' I don't watch much tv these days as once the adverts come on I like to wind the box on, if i haven't fallen asleep. Do you see my point here ? i'm not insulting you i'm just asking if you could highlight your useful points if it's not too much trouble.

Has any one got or produced a short form interpretation of Rick's useful info on here, i'm sure we would all be interested i know i would be.

kind regards AG

PS about 7 or 8 years back I  made a Newman motor with 2 fan cases amd a pile of Neo's it's not all that brilliant but it amuses the cat watching the tape fly round on the brass fly wheel.
I understand where you are coming from.  However I have watched Rick's videos on more than one occasion and he explains everything thoroughly. I even sometimes find it tedious as he goes over points I know.  But that is the whole point -  he is thorough. You have built the window motor apparently. Well if you watch Rick's vids he tells you that it could do more than originally revealed.  He explains how the Heavyside component is trapped by the battery plates acting as capacitor capturing plates  of the Don Smith effect.   That immediately calls into question the physical placement of your batteries and associated leads  ie are they cancelling out the magnetic field?
So  I suggest you do some research on Rick's videos.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 21, 2019, 09:42:45 PM
AG, I don't have time to get inside of your head when you don't bother to pay attention to what you type. Like "wind the box on"  ??? Maybe you're still sleeping when you type.
I have already given you points such as I gave to G:
1. The gains in resonance tank circuits as specified.
2. The gains in fast rates of change in the context specified. You can also read Tesla on that subject as noted.
I am working on a short document with important points to not be mistaken on in this research. There is nothing like this out there. It will take a few years to perfect but I'll probably have an initial publication soon. The hard part in making things short is that leaves room to more misunderstanding, and I'm not giving you critics anything more to poke at. It is also hard to use words that have different meanings for different people about important ideas.
Hi ever one, 

Rick' I don't watch much tv these days as once the adverts come on I like to wind the box on, if i haven't fallen asleep. Do you see my point here ? i'm not insulting you i'm just asking if you could highlight your useful points if it's not too much trouble.

Has any one got or produced a short form interpretation of Rick's useful info on here, i'm sure we would all be interested i know i would be.

kind regards AG

PS about 7 or 8 years back I  made a Newman motor with 2 fan cases amd a pile of Neo's it's not all that brilliant but it amuses the cat watching the tape fly round on the brass fly wheel.
???
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 21, 2019, 09:50:27 PM
Believe me, no one finds my videos more irritating than I do (at least most of the time). They are very poor quality because I don't have time to do them. I just throw them up there and hopefully they will serve a purpose. I'm not offended with the criticisms, but I have everyone beat there. I may delete all of them soon when I get more time to properly do them. The idea has been to do something rather than nothing. The content is not bad, just the delivery is not appealing. Not spiced up enough. In truth, it doesn't matter what is true or false anymore, all that matters is how entertaining it is. When I do something to make people laugh I get likes and compliments.
…. I even sometimes find it tedious as he goes over points I know. ….
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 22, 2019, 02:06:05 AM
Believe me, no one finds my videos more irritating than I do (at least most of the time). They are very poor quality because I don't have time to do them. I just throw them up there and hopefully they will serve a purpose. I'm not offended with the criticisms, but I have everyone beat there. I may delete all of them soon when I get more time to properly do them. The idea has been to do something rather than nothing. The content is not bad, just the delivery is not appealing. Not spiced up enough. In truth, it doesn't matter what is true or false anymore, all that matters is how entertaining it is. When I do something to make people laugh I get likes and compliments.

I watched your latest videos as I said I will.
I was interested in negative energy "term" and I watched videos related to it, and some more.
Found interesting aspects, in your explanations.

Your videos are not irritating, just too long as you try to explain everything and sometimes (every time) you lose focus on subject which is ok.
At least once, most of us tried to harvest back emf or use it somehow, but nobody found efficient way to do it.

You are right when you say that important thing is rate of change which produce more spikes. And then repetition, frequency.
With those two perfected it is possible to make only spikes very fast before current starts to flow and harvest only spikes.
That system would spend only little to drive.

But the question is will the spikes provide more power then input. In spikes could be hundreds of wats, but their transient is very short, so at the end, is there more power in spikes only than input?

Or if you feedback it, and use it at same time, it needs to be same or less than input (losses), for efficient system.

Any way I found your videos interesting.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 22, 2019, 03:01:36 AM
I understand where you are coming from.  However I have watched Rick's videos on more than one occasion and he explains everything thoroughly. I even sometimes find it tedious as he goes over points I know.  But that is the whole point -  he is thorough. You have built the window motor apparently. Well if you watch Rick's vids he tells you that it could do more than originally revealed.  He explains how the Heavyside component is trapped by the battery plates acting as capacitor capturing plates  of the Don Smith effect.   That immediately calls into question the physical placement of your batteries and associated leads  ie are they cancelling out the magnetic field?
So  I suggest you do some research on Rick's videos.
Here is a better picture of the device it has two coils one either side but it's got no trigger coil what it does have is 2 hall 3 pin devices to detect where the Neo's are, it will run ok but it's not a self runner the armature has two stacks of neo's along it's length N and S depending where it is in rotation I need to make it a full wave bridge when i get time. the circuity is different to the Badini as it has a pnp to invert the low side NPN so it's on the same time as the PNP high side transistor.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 22, 2019, 03:27:11 AM
As I understand from Rick's videos and he's talks that rate of change (on/off time) is essence of Bedini.
It is not clear to me how Bedini can do that with PNP and NPN, because, mosfets are speed kings for that.
Even a cheap IRF540 can out speed any NPN for a lot... in a terms of on/off speed, which is must be, for Bedini system?

By the way, nice work AG!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 22, 2019, 09:01:58 AM
1. Rate of change is basics essential.
2. Add Resonance for intermediate level.
3. Add impedance matching for advanced unlimited output.

As I understand from Rick's videos and he's talks that rate of change (on/off time) is essence of Bedini.
It is not clear to me how Bedini can do that with PNP and NPN, because, mosfets are speed kings for that.
Even a cheap IRF540 can out speed any NPN for a lot... in a terms of on/off speed, which is must be, for Bedini system?

By the way, nice work AG!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 22, 2019, 09:39:56 AM
See the problem is always the same, people always assume "more of the same" is the answer. You guys are stuck on assuming under unity is the only reality. At some point you have to ask yourself why bother looking anywhere for extra energy if you assume it will only equal to that anyway. Why do that? Where is the extra energy supposed to come into the system if you assume it can't?
You are assuming that bemf or the negative energy is something like electrons that can be measured. You don't get it. The energy does not travel from somewhere to a distant destination like current flow. You are assuming Kirchhoff's law somehow applies and it all has to equal out and that it is all current. But this energy doesn't flow but rather converges into the paths/loads. This is a true negative resistance process, but you are thinking it as a positive resistance. Therefore you cannot expect a larger load like a battery to receive more power over time than a smaller load. Naturally this doesn't make any sense to you. Because according to Kirchhoff you can't even have any electrical flow backwards anyway. So then how can a 300V battery be charged at all with a 12V input? Yet it can and does.
You guys keep repeating things that are not true at all. So then people who haven't done the testing assume there is some universal failure. But in fact tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands how "found efficient way to do it." Who is this "nobody" you refer to? If I have a fan of the billions of brushless fans in existence, like in the back of your computer, and I charge another battery at all, while the fan runs at the same speed and air flow then I have found an more efficient way have I not? This is old news. Where have you been all these years not to see this? I find these "nobody found it" statements to be actually part of psychological war against this research. It creates the idea over and over again that nobody has done anything when many have and it is actually old news...
So then why would I be right in saying rate of change and frequency if "nobody found efficient way to do it"? These are two opposite statements you are making. I don't understand. Notice I say that because then you go back to saying the same thing. But first, we are not talking about merely making motors more efficient. You are on the wrong forum if you are not seeking OU but merely more efficiency. Here we are focused not even on mere negative differential resistance but true negative resistance.
Back to you reverting back to the same current assumptions of out must equal in. If you are talking about current then that would have to be the case. But then why are we even kidding around about OU?
First point to consider, WHICH NO ONE BOTHERS TO PROPERLY EVALUATE. If you had say 100W input to drive a motor. If you get the motor action while you get 10W worth of electrical output would that not be significant. Your comment is supposing it is nothing unless it is above 100W output. But you forget the motor output. Now if you are charging a battery and get 75W worth of charging of a lead acid battery, you would be already needing 100W maybe to charge it that way normally. So if you can rotate around two batteries, while running the motor as intended, then you have more than 2 times the output because it takes more than 100% to charge a battery right? So I see many people as ungrateful for any additional output unless it is more than the input. This is a big mistake if you are using the motor as normal, like in the case of a fan.

Secondly, the spikes are not current so they amount to zero watts. This is a misunderstanding to think that it is again a matter of volts and amps. Again I ask, if it was so then where would extra energy enter in? This is why I asked G if resonance is a gain or not? If not then what are we doing here? If the pulse does not open a door up to the aether so that energy converges in to the negative resistor then who are we kidding people? Just how are you to expect any gain at all?

So what did you find interesting if you just assumed that the spike input would be the same as the spike on the output? How do you expect to find any gain?

At least once, most of us tried to harvest back emf or use it somehow, but nobody found efficient way to do it.
You are right when you say that important thing is rate of change which produce more spikes. And then repetition, frequency.
With those two perfected it is possible to make only spikes very fast before current starts to flow and harvest only spikes.
That system would spend only little to drive.

But the question is will the spikes provide more power then input. In spikes could be hundreds of wats, but their transient is very short, so at the end, is there more power in spikes only than input?

Or if you feedback it, and use it at same time, it needs to be same or less than input (losses), for efficient system.

Any way I found your videos interesting.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 22, 2019, 12:36:30 PM
Rick,

In your videos you stated "There is thousands of wats in that spikes", I don't wanna bother to watch them again to find in which one.
My post is comment to your statement from your video, and I didn't use word "thousand" like you do, it seems to me, too much overrated, so I used word hundreds.
And my post is answer to your statement. It still is. Transient of spikes are too short to be usable for large amounts of power in your system with input 12V, 4A.


Secondly, the spikes are not current so they amount to zero watts.
Now, in your post you stated there is no power in spikes. I will not comment that because if you look only voltage with probe and not current you can not claim that. For that claim you have to look voltage and current transient and math will do the rest. I recommend LT Spice so you don't have to bench.

So then how can a 300V battery be charged at all with a 12V input? Yet it can and does.
Battery of 300V can be charged that moment when your input is above 300V. Input can be 300,1V and it will charge 300V battery.
Any spike above 300V will start to charge that battery. How efficient, that is...??

Battery will recharge chemically also, so you gain here also.
Replace your batteries with capacitors and you will see how long your system will work. Batteries are not relevant for measuring. You can cheat on them, they are chemically compounds. They will charge without your intervention for a period and then collapse after a while of doing that. One of your cells will fry and then it is over.
With electrical impulses you can stimulate chemical process even more, that is cheating.

What is relevant is in/out transient math.
You can charge the earth, it has more capacity than battery.
You stated "the bigger load will charge more". Earth is bigger load than battery. You can try that, but true measurement with whole earth can not be done.
In your videos you measure input 4A. You never showed how much is going back and charge your battery. I doubt that is 4A. Maybe in mA.


But in fact tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands how "found efficient way to do it." Who is this "nobody" you refer to?
I was wrong about that. Anyone who found efficient system did not return here to tell. So, word "nobody" is wrong.

I was interested in your term "negative energy" because I worked on negative but not energy system so I was curious to hear how much you know about it?
I am also interested in your terms "resonance" and "negative resistance".

3. Add impedance matching for advanced unlimited output.
From this statement, I can only assume that you have achieved unlimited output. Only you know if this is true.

2. Add Resonance for intermediate level.
What is resonance to you? Can you explain?

This is a true negative resistance process, but you are thinking it as a positive resistance.
What is true negative resistance for you? Please explain this also. So, I can compare my findings with somebody who is more experienced like you. And don't talk about Kron, your words only.

Now, you will say this guy attacking me!
I don't. It is not my intention. If I does, this post will look very different than this.

I am still curious about your experience with Bedini and others and what you all accomplished over the years. I am still looking for that and did not found one promising too much.
So, it is interesting subject.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on June 22, 2019, 05:54:44 PM

I am still curious about your experience with Bedini and others and what you all accomplished over the years. I am still looking for that and did not found one promising too much.
So, it is interesting subject.
Hi WhatIsIt,

I worked on Bedini tech for several years and built several electro-mechanical and fully solid state energisers. It became a cult with much time and money being expended by many in the search for free energy manifested in the battery bank by the actions of the energiser - a definitely not OU device in itself, as pointed out many times by John. So we were all looking for a free energy gain in our LA battery banks after having completed many charge / discharge cycles. Not forgetting the 'mechanical' gain by virtue of the torque available from revolving bike wheel, which John also reminded us many times was free, if of course and only if we built the energiser properly and not just the way that we wanted to build it. In the meantime, John was publishing books with riddles to the building and secrets of the various energisers and more exotic devices like the 'Window Motor'.

Confusion mounted as time went on, as battery load testing appeared to be carried out in different ways, until a load testing guideline was produced by SG forum members. I hit an apparent gain on many occassions, especially during the first few load testing cycles, until I realised why. The 'why' held the secret as to why my batteries appeared to be gaining real capacity. Interestingly, when I reached around the 8th and then subsequent cycles load testing cycles, I noticed a slow reduction in gain in the form of a flatlining data curve. What was causing this I thought to myself. Well, I know that other experimenters know why and I think Rick does but to my knowledge the answer was never openly acknowledged by those leading the cult, as it exposed the myth of free energy from LA batteries.
Towards the end of those cult years, John made an astounding admission, that all our battery 'spiking' with energisers without the use of cap pulsers, was damaging our batteries!!. I'd had enough of it by then and moved into what has become a new cult - Kapanadze free energy devices.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 22, 2019, 10:31:55 PM

FWIW, i am still working on this and build myself 6 new coils.

The picture shows the 6 new coils compared to the 5 older smaller ones.

The new ones measure:

6cm diameter
52 turns 0.71mm (AWG 21)
144uH @ 100Khz
0.4 Ohm.

Different compared to the old coils is that the 5nF capacitor is parallel, so we have a parallel LC instead
of a series LC we had. (the big drive coil still is a series LC).
Resonance frequency stays around 180Khz.

Looks like this parallel LC (high impedance, high voltage, low current @ resonance) gives a better match as
the 3W led (after FWB rectification by 4x Bat 46 and buffer cap 220uF) looks stronger.

Seems like i have to build 4 more of those coils to see any effect.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 22, 2019, 10:35:00 PM
I would be interested to know who you are. In those days people used their names which helped in discussions.

I have to agree about a number of things you bring up here (while I would also like to help with several mistakes). The first thing is that it was true that Bedini created a cult about himself and the idea from Bearden, Peter, and Tony C that he was a living legend. I have now fully exposed that lie. While John had and promoted some truths he did not appear to invent anything himself, nor did he show himself able to proper experiments on so many levels. I made the mistake of assuming he was something that he wasn't and after several years I realized that there was nothing special about him and that really had almost no ability to do good science. He ended up promoting battery killers like his tesla switch and DC chargers and could not even do any proper thermal management with products over 100W. I was especially amazed as I watched him try to figure out how to make the big Ferris wheel that I assembled for my convention do something special. I had shown one coil driving it with 1W, which he didn't want to show, and after 2 or 3 weeks with thousands of dollars of wire wasted in huge coils and magnets, wasting all of our time, he just did more of the same while mystifying everyone that what he had done was somehow special--when my simple coil was exactly the same result. He was a man of hype who relatedly said to me and others in the shop that he learned from the Jews to keep his name being talked about whether good or bad. He was always dangling the carrot in front of everyone and drawing everything out. He said to me not to tell everyone everything so that you could always be above them. Well John was just a copycat and there was nothing special about him or any special abilities. In the end he lied about his history to elevate himself over Newman and delete him. And you have to ask yourself if there was more to this than merely having serious personal problems? You have to judge it by the resulting fruit, as I have done interviewing thousands of people impacted by him. John could have spent a little time to organize teaching that gives people clear direction so that his claim for caring for the little old lady at the end of road that struggles to pay her power bill could have been realized. In the end John left us with nothing but his vain pride and the games he played. He rightly calculated that even if he would give the answers to everyone in plain sight that people would miss it if he really didn't draw attention to it. Thus DVD7 passed unnoticed by everyone. John never demonstrated it so naturally people didn't think by his body language that it was anything important--even while he said you could multiply it out as much as you want. John never used the technology in the shop or his home, and he never made any electric vehicles so he was not a man of experience but rather of hype, storytelling, mysticism and inflated ego. However, this did not mean that everything he said was a lie or useless. He passed on a lot of good information from others even though those close to him could realize the limitations of his understand of such copied information (due to his lack of personal experimentation--he relied on others to prove things out and often resorted to 5 minute tests himself). So because of his lack of personal experience he often gave bad direction and misspoke about many things. This is also how you can account for his many contradictor statements where he manifestly flipflopped within a day. He could never be a real scientist that is ready to learn from failures while trying to maintain a legend status where you are the expert that can never be wrong.

So all that pride and mysticism and hiding things in plain sight was mixed into the many things and directions Bedini was giving about the SSG. I did what I could to demystify it and give some direction. But the helpers mixed in their own errors into advice given to replicators and the result was somewhat chaotic. I did show the proper conclusions people were looking for in actual demonstrated models. But my mistake was not organizing all the correct information in one concise plays. This has be a learning experience for me. In the last few years I have been able to give better direction in these matters.

As for your claim that the energizer is "definitely not an OU device in itself", and that this was affirmed by John himself. The problem with that is that John was a liar and often contradicted himself. He even made sweeping statements like "there is no such things as free energy" all the while publishing books on free energy generation. These are but word games. The word game in this respect is that you have to understand HOW free energy processes work. They are not in some special arrangements of parts as if the parts are a free energy or OU device. I have always said that the batteries are half the system. But even the energizer with the batteries are not going to give you any desired results unless you know what you are doing and don't contradict several important things. And you will do just that if you assume various things that people are inclined to assume. If you don't understand HOW the energy gain practically works then you will usually end up defeating the process. So after all these years I have realized that this is 90% psychological and people's problematic practice of giving themselves over to assumptions at the beginning. And as I have said, if you assume everything is just "MORE OF THE SAME THING" then why do you expect to have any gains? There has to be one or more different things done that are different than the norm. And these I have repeatedly pointed out. These are the key things to be focused on and are key conditions to success. But first you have to be open to realize that first point. This is what G could not do, and what many others are not even willing to consider. So until we are open to the idea that there may be something missing in mainstream science, that it is limited in regards to the real world possibilities then what is the point proceeding merely upon that limited foundation? If it is believed to be absolute then what do you really hope to find here when that foundation can only result in under unity not matter what you examine???

It was true that the negative resistor was the battery itself. It was also the entire path connecting to the battery terminals. The first point people really missed, because they were jumping ahead to wanting to prove their goal out in a short time, was that the battery should not have charged at all. People did not realize that because there were just looking at the circuit and system as a mere amplifier. They were partly justified because of Bedini's lack of clarity in the matter and his insistence that the energizer was not a motor but rather a mechanical oscillator which was not meant to do any mechanical work. So people were merely assuming that it was like an amplifier action where the primary battery was powering the second battery. Naturally they wanted to see the second battery be able to produce more work over time than the first battery took to make the process happen. So misunderstandings multiplied at that level of misunderstanding. First of all it wasn't realized by most people who are not familiar with the inefficiencies in battery charging, that if you consider all the energy it takes to charge a battery and discharge it that you have significant losses. So even if you can rotate batteries around on such a system (as many people have done with these systems over the last 15 years) that you would have had to create more than unity to keep it all going in light of all the inherent losses in charging batteries and switching transistors, etc.

Because Bedini did not promote the motor idea people thought of this as an amplifier and if they used the small batteries they would never see a practical gain. Now he did have the fan set up and that was really the only exception to contradict that major misimpression. Let me explain. I came into this as a backyard mechanic and saw instantly that we could apply this to actual motors rather than just looking at this as a mechanical oscillator. I proved everyone wrong in the assumption that even the SSG could never have any mechanical output. I demonstrated this across the major US campuses for a year. And I have shown how you can take an existing brushless fan and charge a battery up with it while it still runs as normal. People copied that and take credit for it. But I drove this point home first, that the input battery was not at all charging the second battery, but was merely powering the motor. All the losses in the input battery are merely because of the closed loop upon itself at the rate of the motor load. This Kirchhoff will prove out. So now how can the charging battery charge at all? Any charging, if you allow that to be part of your estimation of this circuit, violates Kirchhoff (as Walter Lewin hints at) and gives you a non-conservative gain. Naturally people want to disregard the second battery in such cases. But it is something everyone can see. I have demonstrated this for 15 years now to probably 100,000 people. And I have taught way more people how to experience the same thing with real motors. So the first thing to realize that the battery should not be charging at all from the perspective of mainstream college level physics. Anything useful you get out of it is free energy gains from the norm. It is not some better efficiency as it is a real gain. This is all the basic entry level into this technology. Many people did not get that and so never actually started. I call this stage one in my Selfish Circuits or Loving Paths teaching. I demonstrated many different motors in the real world showing that I could not only power significant loads but continually rotate my batteries for years without having to charge them from anything outside of that stage one system. I deliberately did not use any advanced process in what I call stages 2 or 3. So I made the rider lawnmower be powered off of the SSG circuit and drove it a half mile through a parade in 2007, when the batteries were starting fully discharged. Later I did the window motor on the same lawnmower which 400 people could see me riding around at my Renaissance Convention at the Cour D'alene Resort in 2010. You could see everything was the basic stage one process. Two battery banks rotated around. The next year I added a few more coils to that crude motor and put it into a 26' boat which I gave rides on at the July 2011 convention (which ended up causing everyone to turn against me as I evidently crossed a line in that demonstration). I ran that boat for three years on just rotating the batteries around. I did this to show everyone that the basic circuit could do this. I was expected to do this, and I couldn't resist it either  ;D I showed ceiling fans that I had used for the whole summer with just rotating the batteries back and forth. I showed smaller fans. Generators, and many different things demonstrating the basic circuit was not merely a mechanical oscillator but a real motor. This is old news my friend. I gave everyone enough reasons and demonstration that you could do the same yourself and easily see that you could get two outputs for one input. Power a motor while charging a battery that could more or less be rotated around without doing any significant tuning or special process beyond slapping the parts together. What more could I have done to show the stage 1 basic process is 2 times the energy than input? Since it was rotating (which only requires the added capacitor, SCR and diode) it was the same as self-running. In the first six months of this research (like Feb 2005) I could power all of my energy needs. Now I was broke as a joke and didn't even have money for a $6k inverter even though I rejuvenated and used large banks of discarded batteries. Nevertheless I made free junk do this stuff and had things powered all over my house. Someone donated money to keep me doing this stuff and so I put it all into the lawnmower parts and circuits. Later we formed Renaissance and I've been at it ever since.

The second point to consider is building upon the first point. The first point is that the primary battery is not charging the second battery. They are in series with each other and there can be no current flow from a battery in series with another battery. This is especially understood by everyone when the input battery is 12V and the charging battery is higher like 24, 36, 48, or 300 volts. How can you charge a higher potential battery from another one that is in series? Again, this is not an amplifier circuit. Battery 1 or A is not charging battery 2 or B. The battery is being charged as a negative resistor directly from the environment. The energy converges into it at that point. It is not current flow from the input battery. If that was the case, as people assume, then you would merely be dividing the energy in the coil and the motor would run at half power while the battery only half charged. That is how you would have to apply Kirchhoff to all the branches of circuit loops. But the battery is not in parallel with the primary and is therefore backwards. And if I am running motors for years then obviously this is a mistake. So the first point is clearly established by experience that we are not talking about current charging of the secondary battery and that something else is taking place. This brings us to the second point:

If something else that is not current is charging the battery then maybe the nature of that is much different. Maybe it is rather opposite. Maybe the energy converges in a true negative resistor rather than diverges/scatters out from/across a positive resistor? And maybe one of the remarkable benefits of that is to see how placing a larger surface area results in a greater manifestation of charge over that area under the same conditions/operation of the input and motor. So this is what you can see I did years ago when I did the following experiment. I ran my 3 pole monopole kit with 3 coils having larger wire and running at 2A 12V input from a 12AH battery. I was charging another identical 12V 12AH battery with 1 to 1 input to output approximately. Then I stopped it and removed the charging battery and connected up a slightly bigger battery bank of Bedini's cell phone tower batteries which I had in my shop for 3 years. So now I had not only 48 volts of batteries charging in series connection to my little 12V 12AH battery, but these were 2000AH each. Now the input and rpm remained the same, and over time I ended up being able to get a COP over 200 just by giving more surface area for the negative resistance process to manifest. I also didn't realize that I severely limited the potential by using small wires and clips on those big batteries. Nevertheless I proved to myself and some people that we are not pushing current and this is not a linear thing at all. The batteries are self-charging, and the bigger cup you dip in the ocean the more you will freely get out of it. The Aether is the ocean if we want to admit it. I understood these things early on with my set of 10 golf-cart batteries that I took on the road with me in a big trailer. So my friend I don't think you ever realized how these things work. So many people got lost in Bedini's chaos that I have tried to straighten out all these years.

As for how to properly condition the batteries negatively, I found at the time that people just didn't get it and were really not interested in focusing on doing that to get it right. Relatively few people got that down and actually have continued to do that all these years as they report to me from time to time. So I decided to stop promoting the negative charging as people just didn't want that, and which did not allow for battery rotation. So I showed the SCR pulser and mainly demonstrated that when I showed the rotating setups mentioned. It was a simpleinverted circuit on the negative leg. Just a low ESR high voltage cap being dumped by an SCR triggered by a regular 1N4007 diode. It was switched freely without any power supply or use of some 555 frequency timer as John was showing in his schematics. It was good enough, and gentle enough to not damage the batteries over time (which was something John never cared about).

But because of that major shift decided upon because of the lack of understanding negative energy engineering, the public focus on negative energy engineering in the groups was over. People missed an important thing because all they really wanted was a motor that kept running. So I gave them that. Some years later I returned to this in showing the third stage advanced process. But first you had to understand really what was happening in the first stage. We had only really shown the effects of negative resistance in the batteries. I had explained over and over that if you have larger batteries you would have greater results over using smaller batteries. So what does that imply? It is up to you to figure out by experience. But I also showed inductors and other parts exhibiting this negative resistance in those early years. I also showed how you could do this on the trigger coil side of the circuit and get just as much energy manifestation there as you could mirrored to that on the battery charging side. I got zero response for people on the groups. So I eventually didn't bother to say any more about all that. Anyway, if the energy is converging into the parts that become true negative resistors, then it follows that the larger they are the more they will self-charge. But it also follows that if all this is done in resonance and with proper impedance matching that you can actually add as many of these with their loads as desired. This is because this is not positive current and positive resistances that dissipate the energy. Everything about this is opposite to that and that is why it is called negative. Things get cold rather than hot. Things are charged backwards. Energy converges in at the node rather than diverges out. Several other opposite characteristics you may notice. And this is the background to the DVD7 and Tesla's one wire impulse teaching. But if you didn't dig into these things as some of us did, and really know Tesla's work, then you would just pass over this greatly mistaken and just assuming it is all "MORE OF THE SAME" and current flow, etc. Naturally you fail because of the assumptions. As for how to probably cycle batteries with negative energy I have done several recent videos on that subject I'm not going to add here due to how long this is already...

As for what you say in the last paragraph, I have largely answered that above. But I'll remind everyone what I have recently proven to everyone, that John was a liar and not to be trusted because of that. Yes, as you pointed out, he was playing games with people and really didn't care for the entire community or the individual. And anyone visiting the shop would have heard his brother and CEO of Energenx, Gary say that John's ego was inflated and the whole self-glorification was ridiculous. Which John were you to believe? On Monday or Tuesday? Or I as I have pointed, do you believe John's testimony about his beginnings in his 1984 interview on the Open Mind? And in 2006 in DVD7 where he tells you that 1984 was the beginning of everything in free energy for him. Or do you believe him in 2011 when he changes that story to claim that in 1971 he pre dated Newman and himself and at 22 years of age he actually had the maturely developed window motor published and copyrighted??? This is now the end of the Hoax of the Bedini legend. And this sort of thing reveals something more was going on all these years. Giving out opposite statements like you point out. Why do you take the one statement at face value when it contradicts equally stated statements? And consider, in the end John sold DC chargers!!! He promoted the idea because of his dashboard reading that you want to cook batteries to death with 15.5V! This is what he did with his solar chargers as I came to learn and departed from over. He even used my batteries that were in that rider lawnmower and cooked them to death while making each one of those solar chargers. In the end, when I gathered my things, I found that they were destroyed and had zero water in them. Nice!  :-[ So what was his mission? To gather people together and start with many truths and control them by chaos so that they would be always hanging on his every word while never really doing anything practical. They were "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." But I demystified all that chaos and when I contradicted his disinformation agenda and also showed the big demonstrations then I had to be stopped. And I paid the price dearly. John had all my forums deleted and he tried to erase me. I crossed the line without even realizing it at the time. And he shut it all down as he always threatened. Now I can see what was going on with all this disinfo chaos. Mixing truth with contradiction and leaving the gathered people to fail on purpose. He said they were never worthy of it and were all a bunch of …. fools. So this is not about merely the technology and processes and whether OU is possible but about controlling people for profit.

Good luck not going through the same sort of game on any online Forum. I'll talk to you in a few months or years as I have many people and you will say wow, now I see what you were saying back then...

Hi WhatIsIt,
I worked on Bedini tech for several years and built several electro-mechanical and fully solid state energisers. It became a cult with much time and money being expended by many in the search for free energy manifested in the battery bank by the actions of the energiser - a definitely not OU device in itself, as pointed out many times by John. So we were all looking for a free energy gain in our LA battery banks after having completed many charge / discharge cycles. Not forgetting the 'mechanical' gain by virtue of the torque available from revolving bike wheel, which John also reminded us many times was free, if of course and only if we built the energiser properly and not just the way that we wanted to build it. In the meantime, John was publishing books with riddles to the building and secrets of the various energisers and more exotic devices like the 'Window Motor'.

Confusion mounted as time went on, as battery load testing appeared to be carried out in different ways, until a load testing guideline was produced by SG forum members. I hit an apparent gain on many occassions, especially during the first few load testing cycles, until I realised why. The 'why' held the secret as to why my batteries appeared to be gaining real capacity. Interestingly, when I reached around the 8th and then subsequent cycles load testing cycles, I noticed a slow reduction in gain in the form of a flatlining data curve. What was causing this I thought to myself. Well, I know that other experimenters know why and I think Rick does but to my knowledge the answer was never openly acknowledged by those leading the cult, as it exposed the myth of free energy from LA batteries.
Towards the end of those cult years, John made an astounding admission, that all our battery 'spiking' with energisers without the use of cap pulsers, was damaging our batteries!!. I'd had enough of it by then and moved into what has become a new cult - Kapanadze free energy devices.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on June 22, 2019, 11:58:37 PM

The second point to consider is building upon the first point. The first point is that the primary battery is not charging the second battery. They are in series with each other and there can be no current flow from a battery in series with another battery. This is especially understood by everyone when the input battery is 12V and the charging battery is higher like 24, 36, 48, or 300 volts. How can you charge a higher potential battery from another one that is in series? Again, this is not an amplifier circuit. Battery 1 or A is not charging battery 2 or B. The battery is being charged as a negative resistor directly from the environment. The energy converges into it at that point. It is not current flow from the input battery. If that was the case, as people assume, then you would merely be dividing the energy in the coil and the motor would run at half power while the battery only half charged. That is how you would have to apply Kirchhoff to all the branches of circuit loops. But the battery is not in parallel with the primary and is therefore backwards. And if I am running motors for years then obviously this is a mistake. So the first point is clearly established by experience that we are not talking about current charging of the secondary battery and that something else is taking place. This brings us to the second point:

Thanks for your analysis of John's character which I generally but not entirely concur with.

I am very surprised at the statement you make regarding the energiser primary battery not being even partly responsible for charging the secondary battery. Whilst its true that its not a conventional direct charging process, it is certainly by conventional analysis the case that the some of the energy drawn from the primary battery is transfered to the secondary battery by a process of HV inductive discharge from the power winding. I'm not going to attempt to explain this to you technically in detail, suffice to say that John was an expert at intoducing confusing pseudo technical concepts into the explanation on the modus-operandi of his energisers. That's not to say that there is not a more exotic and exciting process going on as well. However, confusion, misinformation and disinformation is so widespread on this subject in my opinion, that its too late to attempt to change entrenched mindsets. A sign of our times unfortunately.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 22, 2019, 11:59:13 PM
No, I won't say someone is attacking me by trying to understand what I am saying and even believing that I am contradicting myself. Attacking is when you misjudge people's motives and play games because you have a selfish agenda. I really don't care what people say about me or do to me. I care about many people getting deceived and wasting their time, money, and faith because of disinfo people causing trouble. I'm posting a big video on this later today as you will see.

In the one video I quote Bedini's Free Energy Generation book that says the spike is hundreds of kw peak pulses. That is a matter of interpretation from the probes on an oscope. At least you are paying some attention to this. In that video I was stressing the point that we are potentializing the ions to move in the charge direction for very little trigger energy input. The idea is not claiming that watts over time amount to a total greater output if that is what you are getting at. That is the assumption, the "MORE OF THE SAME" approach to wasting time on OU forums seeking to find OU while assuming it cannot be possible because we are only looking for under unity results by boiling everything down to volts and I over time. Now Tesla talked about abruptly discharging his special capacitors and seeing hundreds of thousands of hp as a result. These were huge gain, and that is not an unrelated subject...

Again, you are just assuming that we have to have volts and amps amounting to a gain in the intermediate process for anything to be significant. But that is just not the case. As I wrote to G, we can measure your watts at the final output from the batteries over time. But since this is a negative resistance process we will not see such there because it is not current flow. See my last long email for the negative energy. That is different than from the discharging of a cap as I just referred to Tesla talking about. The discharging of a cap results in current flow, but the fast rate of that switching also results in additional gains, and is another matter to talk about... Says who that "transient of spikes are too short to be useable"??? That's not my experience over the last 15 years. I suggest you read Tesla and Stienmitz on the subject to start at the beginning. I'll talk to you in a few months after you do that. Again, you didn't read what I wrote to G about "power". You are assuming that power is everything and without "power" measurements we have nothing. Says who? If that is so then you are completely wasting your time looking for OU here and everywhere. Someone show me how you can have free energy at all if there has to be power measurements adding up at every stage of the system? Even with solar you cannot measure power from the sun can you? Where the gains happen it does not show power. Power can be measured from the cells to the loads but not to the cells. Is there any power in outer space between the sun and the Van Allen belts? Is there any power measurements in your body's electrical system? These are all just mainstream assumptions that don't pertain to free energy research.

Again, all your assumptions are based upon a faulty understanding of power. And rather, you need to get the right spice simulation software that can do the nonlinear reactive calculations and they will indeed show you these things. This is a major point I made the other day. I happen do know many engineers that use such in their day to day work where they are tasked to eliminate the adverse effects of such spikes. But if you don't use the right software then I can understand why you are so mistaken about all of this.

I don't understand your comment about a battery needing 300V spike to charge. That is not correct at all. I can charge a battery with a spike that is less than 1V over the battery. So I don't understand why you say that.
Yes a battery can have gains in manipulating the ions with little input energy. That is another subject.

You are very wrong in saying: "Batteries are not relevant for measuring. You can cheat on them, they are chemically compounds. They will charge without your intervention for a period and then collapse after a while of doing that. One of your cells will fry and then it is over."
On what basis can you make this claim? I have spent 15 years full time in proving just the opposite. The problem is that most people do not understand how involved it is to properly evaluate batteries. You give up trying because you don't understand them and their curves and how to properly charge them. This is my main work and which I talk to people about every day. If I can repeat a process and get continual loads off of a battery then THAT IS THE WAY YOU CAN HAVE A RELAVANT MEASURING. You don't try and measure the battery while it is charging and base things on that. You measure the load after the fact.
The batteries do not collapse after a while. Maybe you are doing something wrong or who knows why you think that. I restore batteries and have thousands of people restoring and keeping their batteries all over the world with my Renaissance battery chargers or the motor systems. They don't fry. On the contrary, the useless batteries come back most of the time and we get to keep them. You just don't know how this works, just as you try and evaluate free energy systems with power measurements. Fundamental misunderstandings. And what you go into with, your method, will be what you get out of it.
What you are trying to say that is we are merely using up a limited chemical process. Nice try chemist. But the fact is our batteries grow with time and enlarge their capacity!!! They improve with time. And that is old news. The statement is just propaganda spread to scar people off. It is true, what you say, with the Bedini Switch, which he called the Tesla Switch, that you will ruin your batteries really fast of you push the plates back and for like he recommended. Thousands of people have been burned by Bedini that way. But that is not what we are doing here.

Again, if you want math you have to use the right math that is in the real world. Talk to me about measuring the actual work done at the end of the process and don't fool around with trying to mess with the process and measure before then. Yes it is interesting to see the complete discrepancy. But how many engineers will not dare look at the end loads because they measured in the middle and made their conclusions?? That is the diversion. But we show you the discrepancy and it proves what we are saying...
Not sure why you bring up the earth.

I'm not sure what video you are talking about with 4A. Again, if the meter said 0ma going to the charging battery over time, and then I ran a load off that battery over time and it gave me some ma reading then what would you say? I refuse to even consider doing that possibly. People don't want to do that because it takes time. Yes I am long done doing that and working with batteries and motors myself as I don't need them. But it is easy to see if you have just a little patience. Again, you will only accept that the battery will be charging at the rate of the amp meter measurement. And you will then say the only gains in the battery are limited chemical consumables. Now that is a powerful argument to deceive many people with. I give it top grades. It is as effective as me pointing out an actually true point of Bedini's Switch killing batteries while very shortly demonstrating gains. Is it worth replacing your batteries every few days? But in your case it is actually false. But because neither your claim or my claim cannot be proven over the internet your skeptical claim is effectively very dissuasive to many readers. It would be a very effective tool to use to turn people off from even trying. But that would only really be successful if that was done at the beginning in 2004 before thousands of others have demonstrated the opposite.

You have to understand, people don't return because they get on with life. They tire of being attacked. I talk to them on the phone or through email or in person. Why would anyone want to do circles with you guys who assume there can not be any free energy on forums about OU? You have a circle you are stuck in. You limit yourself to power measurements I closed loops. What do you really expect? When I press you guys you take off yourselves. Explain to me why you expect to find anything on this forum from anyone when you assume the very things that prevent OU? What are you looking for if you believe it cannot happen? Remember, amps and watts are the rate of wasted energy in a closed loop. You will never find anything different. But if you care to see a system with multiple outputs that can power various loads and put your meters there you will not be able to account for why there is power measurements there but not in the middle.

You say you are curious, that is all it seems to be. You do not believe these things however. So curious to see what I would say only. You'll have to answer these things to go further. I cannot help this confusion you have any further. You are trapped in your own circle loops. The remainder of the words do not matter as they are just words to you. Your power filter only understands these words under college level testing and not real world experience. Without getting past your assumptions mentioned any words go no where. You see everything red with red lenses. I have already answered these questions in resent postings to G and others.

This is not an "interesting" subject as if it is idle chitchat. This whole forum stands and falls on these points. If what you assume is true then Stefan is deceiving thousands of people in having this forum continue when a simple statement that claims all OU is impossible because power in must equal power out, and only measurements at each point in the system prove it. This we can read sure enough on Wikipedia already. So I find you guys, in essence, just repeating that but in a way that almost pretends to still be interested in free energy. But you never justify how that could be possible considering what you say you believe and how you argue against points and claims. So it seems to me that most people doing that are really actually believing OU and just looking for more details from others by presenting themselves as not believing, or they are people just pretending to be open to OU while really just trying to disprove people. Who can really know people's motivations. I guess there are also the rest of the people who are merely confused and used to power measurements and find it hard to break free of that bondage. All I am doing is showing how that if power is really the only indication of anything, then save yourself the time and move on to something else because none of us who are making these OU claims will tell you that you will find power in these gain processes (anymore than in outer space with solar) because we will all say that power is only measuring the rate of wasting the energy in closing the loop upon the source charge. We have to have the reverse of loss, and a real gain right?

Rick,
In your videos you stated "There is thousands of wats in that spikes", I don't wanna bother to watch them again to find in which one.
My post is comment to your statement from your video, and I didn't use word "thousand" like you do, it seems to me, too much overrated, so I used word hundreds.
And my post is answer to your statement. It still is. Transient of spikes are too short to be usable for large amounts of power in your system with input 12V, 4A.

Now, in your post you stated there is no power in spikes. I will not comment that because if you look only voltage with probe and not current you can not claim that. For that claim you have to look voltage and current transient and math will do the rest. I recommend LT Spice so you don't have to bench.
Battery of 300V can be charged that moment when your input is above 300V. Input can be 300,1V and it will charge 300V battery.
Any spike above 300V will start to charge that battery. How efficient, that is...??

Battery will recharge chemically also, so you gain here also.
Replace your batteries with capacitors and you will see how long your system will work. Batteries are not relevant for measuring. You can cheat on them, they are chemically compounds. They will charge without your intervention for a period and then collapse after a while of doing that. One of your cells will fry and then it is over.
With electrical impulses you can stimulate chemical process even more, that is cheating.

What is relevant is in/out transient math.
You can charge the earth, it has more capacity than battery.
You stated "the bigger load will charge more". Earth is bigger load than battery. You can try that, but true measurement with whole earth can not be done.
In your videos you measure input 4A. You never showed how much is going back and charge your battery. I doubt that is 4A. Maybe in mA.

I was wrong about that. Anyone who found efficient system did not return here to tell. So, word "nobody" is wrong.

I was interested in your term "negative energy" because I worked on negative but not energy system so I was curious to hear how much you know about it?
I am also interested in your terms "resonance" and "negative resistance".
From this statement, I can only assume that you have achieved unlimited output. Only you know if this is true.
What is resonance to you? Can you explain?
What is true negative resistance for you? Please explain this also. So, I can compare my findings with somebody who is more experienced like you. And don't talk about Kron, your words only.

Now, you will say this guy attacking me!
I don't. It is not my intention. If I does, this post will look very different than this.

I am still curious about your experience with Bedini and others and what you all accomplished over the years. I am still looking for that and did not found one promising too much.
So, it is interesting subject.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on June 23, 2019, 12:18:52 AM
https://www.google.com/search?q=borderlands.de+energy+multiplier&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=borderlands.de+energy+multiplier&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)
www.borderlands.de (http://www.borderlands.de)  Technology of Free Energy Multiplier
f. e.  page 19 referring somebody named "Rick Friedrich"
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 23, 2019, 12:38:33 AM

LancaIV:  specifically here

http://www.borderlands.de/Links/Free_Energy_Multiplier.pdf (http://www.borderlands.de/Links/Free_Energy_Multiplier.pdf) 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on June 23, 2019, 12:53:11 AM
Lancia is familiar :  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Lancia
LancaIV( luso-written) is enough
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 23, 2019, 04:51:51 AM
RICK  interesting development:  By intercepting the led on the satellite coil with a bridge rectifier I was able to get over 17 volts and 9 ma. This was enough to  the charge the gate driver battery. So the whole set up was stuck on 10.8 volts for hours. I also attached an earth ground to the negative terminal of the output of the bridge and it increased the output by 1/2 volt and approximately 0.4 ma .
I kept the led in the circuit for tuning purposes. Why the led doesn't blow beats me- (although I have had one go bang the other day) The frequency gen was powered separately.
The thing in the centre of some of some of the coils is a ferrite rod used for additional tuning purposes.  Another development of the RICK. (Resonance induction coupler kit)

So here you have a direct example of why EEs very rarely discover anything.  Everyone knows that an led needs about 3.7 volts. Everyone knows an led will blow at 6 volts. AND EVERYONE IS WRONG. Try it.lol
And yes it will power another 4 watt 12 volt bulb.  Figure that one out, lol
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 23, 2019, 06:16:58 AM
Nice A,
So this was while the other loads were running as well. I have a few comments.
The LED in the kit take a good bit of abuse before it burns out and that was why I chose it. You have a different bulb but obviously they can take some as well.
The frequency generator only sends a logic signal to the gate driver so as I wrote before it is not even a consideration. One of my students shows the kit running with one of the receiver coils replacing the frequency generator (but not the gate driver input). So this would be interesting.
However, the claim here doesn't actually mean very much because we have no information about the voltages on the battery to get any idea whether the battery just hit a plateau. There are several such places where the battery can sit for a while and where people think they have something. Like 12.2V is another such place.
Now I don't want to burst any excitement because I think that is a decent output for one coil. It probably isn't enough to sustain it because it usually runs at at least 25ma (unless you have some reduction in input due to lock in mirroring).
Now remember, that this coil would just be one of hundreds of such outputs.

So is this the sort of things people are looking for on this thread? Is this a claim and can or should be believed at all? Is this sort of thing, if meters were shown with pictures or video, to be accepted as Itsu's details? I'm just wondering.

RICK  interesting development:  By intercepting the led on the satellite coil with a bridge rectifier I was able to get over 17 volts and 9 ma. This was enough to  the charge the gate driver battery. So the whole set up was stuck on 10.8 volts for hours. I also attached an earth ground to the negative terminal of the output of the bridge and it increased the output by 1/2 volt and approximately 0.4 ma .
I kept the led in the circuit for tuning purposes. Why the led doesn't blow beats me- (although I have had one go bang the other day) The frequency gen was powered separately.
The thing in the centre of some of some of the coils is a ferrite rod used for additional tuning purposes.  Another development of the RICK. (Resonance induction coupler kit)

So here you have a direct example of why EEs very rarely discover anything.  Everyone knows that an led needs about 3.7 volts. Everyone knows an led will blow at 6 volts. AND EVERYONE IS WRONG. Try it.lol
And yes it will power another 4 watt 12 volt bulb.  Figure that one out, lol
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 23, 2019, 08:39:48 AM
A,
I should also say that this is one way Don shows to keep the input charged if you look in the book you will see the schematic. In that case you would make the coil the connecting wire to the oscillator. But when you learn the 1/4 wave relationships you will not need to go to such lengths. In the powerful or commercial setups you would start with having the L2 secondary tuned for maximum output and then either add this sort of appendage to the side to keep the input powered, or you would make another wavelength receiver out of the wire.

RICK  interesting development:  By intercepting the led on the satellite coil with a bridge rectifier I was able to get over 17 volts and 9 ma. This was enough to  the charge the gate driver battery. So the whole set up was stuck on 10.8 volts for hours. I also attached an earth ground to the negative terminal of the output of the bridge and it increased the output by 1/2 volt and approximately 0.4 ma .
I kept the led in the circuit for tuning purposes. Why the led doesn't blow beats me- (although I have had one go bang the other day) The frequency gen was powered separately.
The thing in the centre of some of some of the coils is a ferrite rod used for additional tuning purposes.  Another development of the RICK. (Resonance induction coupler kit)

So here you have a direct example of why EEs very rarely discover anything.  Everyone knows that an led needs about 3.7 volts. Everyone knows an led will blow at 6 volts. AND EVERYONE IS WRONG. Try it.lol
And yes it will power another 4 watt 12 volt bulb.  Figure that one out, lol
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 23, 2019, 09:36:02 AM
Hi Rick,


I appreciate your long reply to Hoppy, and I appreciate you trying to explain how things really were. But I would appreciate even more if you could be more precise technically, else the confusion will go on forever.


1. I am not writing the following to contradict what you say about negative energy, and I DO understand the negative spikes with a fast change rate and that they are a trigger for converging a different form of energy to batteries, and that lower impedance in both, batteries and output wires help things a lot. BUT, if you keep saying that a) there is no current on the output, and b) that you can't charge a battery that's at a higher voltage than the primary you are not being precise and this keeps confusing people. Any DC-DC converter relies on buck-boost coil collapse (flyback) technology to convert lower to higher or higher to lower voltage, so charging a battery from another battery at any voltage is really not a special feature. Now about the current on the output, if you connect the scope to the switching device you see the typical h wave of an SG or the wave of a solid state oscillator. What we see below the zero line is the coil being powered from the primary battery, immediately followed by the neg. spike we see on the positive side on the scope (because of how we connect the scope) which results from the coil being switched off but not wanting to invert its current flow, immediately followed by the current starting to flow from the resulting collapsing magnetic field of the coil. So, depending on what we connect to the output we will see an according discharge of current also. If we discharge into a 12V battery the current discharge pulse will be almost as wide in time and amplitude (on the scope) as the power pulse, depending on coil resistance, device efficiency, SG or solid state, etc... If we discharge into a 48V battery we will see a much narrower discharge puls after the spike, because the discharging coil automatically adapts to the load voltage and in this case gives higher voltage but less current. This is just to be precise. There definitely is the negative spike which triggers another event we end up finding in the battery, but to say there is NO current and a battery should not charge is not right in my view. The amount of current can vary a lot depending on load voltage, tuning, etc... but there is some.


2. I am not a person of many words, but I like clarity and precision. I couldn't find a straight answer to Hoppy's question whether negative charging damages batteries or not. Would you suggest charging directly or use cap discharge? Also, on the output, would you suggest putting the batteries in series rather than in parallel (even if the impedance would be higher in series)?


3. To rotate negatively charged batteries, why not simply put a big capacitor across the input, since it converts to positive and is what inverters have on the input which we can use?


4. You said you've used SCR cap discharge triggered by a 1n4007 diode, that would dump the cap at 1V above the battery right? What cap size did you use mostly and what aprox. rate? I know it depends on many things. Do you recommend dumping a cap with a neon triggered SCR dump at 90V? I've built probably 40 or 50 variations of circuits from HV small caps to low voltage big caps and everything in between, so I'm kind of curious among all the confusion that's around what you would finally suggest as the best cap dump voltage from your experience.


5. I suppose you missed my post 643?


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 23, 2019, 10:54:28 AM
quote: "Is he selling a kit with parts mounted on nice "footboards" that will not operate correctly gathered together.
              Maybe the perpendicular way is the only way that cerates some good effects? "

I don't know Arne, i tried the satellite coils (and big coil) in all possible positions and combinations, but the "all vertical" yields the best results.

Itsu

Just wonder ??? See pic 1!

Ricks directions pic 2

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 23, 2019, 10:55:57 AM
..
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on June 23, 2019, 11:01:47 AM
Hi Mario,
Good to hear from you. Nice description in item 1 on how energy is transferred. ;) :)
As you well know, it takes very careful observation to see exactly what's happening with the energiser. I'm not sure that John fully understood its operation technically. If he did, he never explained it correctly and in detail to his followers.

Was not me who asked the question in item 2.

Regards Hoppy
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 23, 2019, 11:17:04 AM
Hi Hoppy,


yes sorry, yours wasn't a question. It came from your statement:
Towards the end of those cult years, John made an astounding admission, that all our battery 'spiking' with energisers without the use of cap pulsers, was damaging our batteries!!. I'd had enough of it by then and moved into what has become a new cult - Kapanadze free energy devices.


Unless I missed it I felt Rick didn't really address this issue, as it's part of the things that need to be clarified, in my opinion.

cheers,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 23, 2019, 12:07:37 PM
A.king21,

Please would you clarify a few things: 

1) Is the 17V DC an unloaded voltage your DMM measured across the output of the bridge rectifier? 

2) where and how did you exactly measure the 9 mA? (Between which two points did you connect the ampermeter
    and you got the 9 mA?) 

3) Did you check the DC voltage across the LED with your DMM voltmeter? (I mean the LED that you referred to
    and did not blow. Is it a 12V, 3 or 4 W LED bulb or the smaller sized 5-10 mm OD white LED?)   

I would continue commenting after your answers. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 23, 2019, 01:51:11 PM
The reason I mentioned the experiment is so that others can replicate.  It is not enough for me to state what I did. Others with better measuring techniques can do the experiment.  The led is a 5 mm. I measured the output of the bridge rectifier. I knew there was some power there because of the tongue test.  The output was an ordinary 12 volt 4 watt bulb not lit to full brightness. Also the gate driver battery voltage went up from 10.05 to 10.08 volts when I connected the bridge to the gate driver battery.
Afterwards I disconnected the gate driver but left the freq gen on and it continued to charge the gate driver battery, so I ended up with the gate driver battery powering at 10.10 volts before I finished the test! ( Obviously charged by the freq gen).  I hope!  ie I redid the experiment to see if the battery kept at 10.10 volts under load - which it did. My set up is at 137 khz so I can access the cheaper frequency generators although I have a tap at 180 khz.  The device goes out of tune quickly so you need the extra tuning devices like internal ferrite rods. So it was being tuned and re-tuned between 135 khz and 142 khz. The gate driver can easily go to 18 volts at these frequencies so the experiment was very under powered.  The main point is I have established a new experiment  which may open up the way for a self runner.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on June 23, 2019, 02:07:52 PM
Hi Hoppy,


yes sorry, yours wasn't a question. It came from your statement:
Towards the end of those cult years, John made an astounding admission, that all our battery 'spiking' with energisers without the use of cap pulsers, was damaging our batteries!!. I'd had enough of it by then and moved into what has become a new cult - Kapanadze free energy devices.


Unless I missed it I felt Rick didn't really address this issue, as it's part of the things that need to be clarified, in my opinion.

cheers,
Mario
OK understood. I agree that the 'spiking' issue needs clarification.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 23, 2019, 02:14:26 PM
A further point.  I replaced Rick's led with superbright leds for a better visual effect. The red leds with the kit are brilliant although I have blown one of them.  But then I abuse every component to get the maximum out of the experiment.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 23, 2019, 05:13:40 PM
I actually don't think there was any such statement, and until you produce it I think we can all just disregard your claim as needing some kind of basis for it. Your statement is actually expecting a lot if you think about it. What you are doing is effectively dismissing thousands of statements from John and from thousands of other people during that time, and much more since that time. All with one supposed statement that you claim but have not shown. I think it is probably safe to say that you misunderstood him. You are most likely misunderstanding what was trying to explain about negatively charging the battery and not being able to charge it with positive charging. That takes a little understanding and some people, like yourself, are probably confused. The negative spikes will slowly convert a battery to negative and this has many advantages and a few disadvantages. The advantages are that it can receive a faster charge and can continue on charging for some time after the charging input has stopped. There are other advantages as well, but the disadvantages are that after the charging in the battery has stopped then it will start to discharge much faster than a positively charged battery will. A positively charged battery will hold a charge longer before it self-discharges. The more negatively charged a battery is the longer it will take to receive a positive type of charge. Positive charging is current or DC charging, which is also the cap dump charging. This originally understood when Watson's battery was supposedly stolen from the meeting because it was known that if the battery could not receive a positive charge it would have these characteristics. I don't know if that story about the stolen battery is true (who can say if any story was true from those guys?). But thousands of people have had these experiences over the years. It is easy to see these things and it really is old news. But it is a misunderstanding people have had and I can see where you are probably just mixing up John's words in this matter. If anyone would know what John said along these lines it would have been me. And if a statement was made the way you are thinking then it would have got noticed.

As for me, I would find it very interesting if such a statement was made. But without any reference we'll just have to put this down as a mistake from you. For you have very long videos of John talking about the spiking into the batteries being a good thing. You have numerous emails over the years. What you are claiming would be like John saying after all his appearances and posted pictures of himself, that he actually was a black man. So I'm going to leave this as merely a mistake by you or a deliberate red herring diversion meant to discredit this idea. That has some support considering the games that people play on these forums to try and discredit good ideas.

Anyway, the negative spike charging does not in fact damage the batteries. It is actually ideal for the batteries. It's not for everyone but there are many people all over the world that have very good results from their batteries since those early years. For example, my customer who bought the window motor that went into my Porsche shown also at my 2011 Renaissance convention has negatively charged his batteries with very positive results since then. He just called me a few weeks back and reported that it took several month for him to see the gradual gains and the characteristics I have been talking about. So the batteries get better than they were originally, not damaged. Speaking of my Porsche as displayed at my two big conventions  (2010-2011), I had that for 3 years and my batteries also got better over the years even when I expected the opposite due to discharging them at the C1 rate. After the first year I could even drive 10 miles and the 144V would settle and rest at 152V (which would be considered fully charged with conventional charging). We also get deeper discharge capabilities which results in much more practical advantage for such applications. Normally batteries just drop off after the 10.5V level (on a 12V bank) so that many of my friends in the electric vehicle club I was part of would relate the experience of drive too far out and having to get towed home. But not me. I would see more of a linear drop in voltage and could drive the car down to the lowest voltage my controller would allow for. I would not even "limp" home. So these gains from the negative and Renaissance charging systems allowed for significantly higher starting voltages as well as real capacity at the lower levels (with also completely eliminating the idea of only having a limited number of cycles) that can amount to more almost doubling the actual capacity of batteries. Now we never include any gains below the 10.5V level because AH ratings are based on only above that voltage. But for my customers that have DC loads below that voltage they are very pleased with this fact. Also with the fact that there is no end of life for their batteries. So this claim is merely an attempt to set aside all the testimony of this nature. Again, it is but a slander claim and is not justified.

While on this subject, it is important to make finer points as I do, and as has been requested. One such point is that any pulse produces a negative spike prior to the current flow. So any cap dump is doing that as well. This negative spike as people like to call it is what gives you the advantages. It is not the current that does anything good to a battery. But considering the amount of current from the capacitor, the battery becomes more positively charged than negatively. And the positively charged batteries are needed for the SSG type energizers to create the negative charging effect (unless you do a reverse SSG energizer which we have not shown or explained on the internet). But that is another subject. The point is that there is still some negative charging that precedes the positive in the cap dump. John Bedini was rather loose with his words on purpose and because he was no scientist nor was he someone with any real experience with loading batteries. All his statement were coming from people like me who did the real world testing. And you can even see Bearden admitting that about me. But there were other people who worked for John, like Brett and others before him, that did testing. John had no patience to do real science himself. So there is very little proper description by him of important things. The best we have is DVD7. But even there we can see my points illustrated by him and we can see that his words reveal his lack of experience and lack of precision. This is because he has learned such things from other people and is mostly relaying the work of others. So it is very hard to try and precisely understand Bedini's words when he was so sloppy with them. He was also often misunderstood because he was always in a very specific context that often was not what the questioner was asking. This frustrated many people. John was just going to talk about what he was focused on at the moment. So unless you walked with him in that and allowed him to direct the conversation then you would not get anything. There was very little conversation, he would just talk at you.

So with all these things it is safe to say you misunderstood John. Otherwise you are suggesting that everyone just dismiss what thousands of people have claimed to be a good thing. But this would again be a very persuasive attempt to silence this technology which would be expected on such a forum filled with people attempting to do just that...

Also, I have answered everything that has been asked of me. But it is apparent that people skip over my responses and ask the same questions as if I have not answered them.

Hi Hoppy,
yes sorry, yours wasn't a question. It came from your statement:
Towards the end of those cult years, John made an astounding admission, that all our battery 'spiking' with energisers without the use of cap pulsers, was damaging our batteries!!. I'd had enough of it by then and moved into what has become a new cult - Kapanadze free energy devices.


Unless I missed it I felt Rick didn't really address this issue, as it's part of the things that need to be clarified, in my opinion.

cheers,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 23, 2019, 05:34:15 PM
A.king21,

Thanks for the reply but unfortunately the 9 mA current has not turned out where you measured?   
I can only speculate whether you used the Ampermeter across the diode bridge DC output?  (This is the worst possible current measurement technique among several tinkerers, unfortunately, and I hope you do not do such...)  ::)   

Anyway, I agree with your main point: you have established a new experiment which may lead to a self runner setup, I wish you success on this journey. 

To increase the recharging process for the gate driver battery, more and more satellite coils should be used. 

To approach the near COP=1 situation at least between the summed DC outputs of the satellite coils and the DC input of gate driver IC (voltage and current wise), you would need to achieve a certain loaded DC output from the satellite coils (that you assign for feeding the gate driver) which would amount to the DC power the gate driver takes from its battery. 

To start this, you would need to measure the DC current between say the positive output of the 11V battery and the positive wire which goes to the gate driver as the positive supply. If you have a variable power supply which has current measure feature then you can use it too of course. 

Suppose that you measure for example 120 mA current draw by the gate driver from the 11V battery, this is equivalent to roughly 91 Ohm as a load to the battery (11V/120mA). This would mean that you should first use a 91 or 100 Ohm (not critical), off the shelf, half Watt rated resistor as the load put across the diode bridge outputs of the satellite coils. The latter outputs should all be in parallel, positives to positives and negatives to negatives. 

Then, when you achieve say at least 11-12 VDC measured across the 100 Ohm resistor, you will be very very close to replace the gate drive battery by this DC output (you remove the 100 Ohm load of course when attempting this), this would already be a huge achievement.

I outlined only the process leading possibly this situation, the 100 Ohm might be 91 or 82 Ohm or whatever that corresponds to the load on the battery that feeds the gate driver.  You are surely aware of any addition of resonant satellite coils changes gate driver current draw a little so it is advisable to monitor actual current draw of the driver IC by an Ampermeter.

It is okay you found a small increase in the output power of the satellite coil when attaching an earth ground: this is exactly the same phenomena the builders of a crystal radio receiver also experience as an increase in the audio output. The earth wire insures a better connection to the transmitted energy by increasing the enviromental area of the receiver. Broadcast transmitter antennas are normally grounded too and the radiated energy via the air which is captured by a receiver at a distance can this way receive additional energy from the transmitter antenna via the earth, closing the virtual circuit between the TX antenna as the source and the RX antenna as a consumer. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 23, 2019, 06:57:25 PM
Mario,
Yes you are right in your most recent post that I missed this email. Must have posted while I was writing the post after it.
No, you have missed my point entirely. You will have to read True Wireless over again and not just consider his main thesis which you are revering to. You are missing his core teaching on one wire transfer in relation to impulsing, which is my point. I am mainly drawing attention to figure 5 there to show you your options. Figure 12 is also relating to my point.
I see you are making an basic effort into looking at what I am saying, but you are missing the point entirely. If you do not know what Tesla is saying along these lines then you have not read very much from him. You will have to read through the 3 original lectures I mentioned and reread True Wireless.
You say he was not using impulses when he actually said he was. You say "Tesla was using/sending high freq. sinusoidal signals in this case, no short impulses (except for the cap discharge into the primary of his magnifier but only to get more oscillations, not to send impulses), so I don't know why the association of the one method and short impulses, although impulses can of course trigger resonance just as well." You will have to actually read what he said as you are mistaken. "As the periodic impulses pass through the one wire..." This is not periodic oscillations. Oscillations are one thing he used, but impulses are rather different and important. We associate the two together but you have to realize that the impulse is prior to everything you see in the oscillations after (what is shown on the scope is the effect of the impulse, not the impulse itself). I think you just read the thesis and then assumed there was no impulses in the article??? But you have to read Tesla in context and not ignore him when he uses the word impulse. You have ignored that word and claimed this was merely "sinusoidal". That is a fundamental mistake or misquote.

Further, you talk about the wire returning back to the other end of the coil and wish to make a sweeping statement and impression that DVD7 is merely the same sort of thing as using the ground as a return wire. Both are not true and your dismissal of this shows a lack of attention to critical detail. First of all, if you consider actually what Tesla said you will see you have missed numerous statements, but also you have missed many diagrams of circuits with no earth return, but merely an air grounding. Thus you miss the most important teaching of Tesla and you sort of dismiss it all in a few sentences as non-existing. Were you trying to create this impression or have you just not read Tesla? It appears that you didn't even read Tesla's description of figure five as I have partly quoted above. This is why I wonder about you guys and what is going on here.

Secondly, when I pointed to figure 5 repeatedly I was gifting you guys this point in giving you 4 options to do this special process. DID YOU NOT NOTICE THE FIRST EXAMPLE? a (you mention b but why ignore a?). Tesla is talking about one wire here. Yes the context is the earth but it all works primarily with one actual wire. And the larger context is the early lecture in his demonstration of this with stout copper bars where the so-called hairpin circuit was demonstrated and articulated. Anyway, notice this (a) example is not a two wire tap from the one wire bar. So we have two one wire transfers here illustrated if you care to notice. The first is the main buss showing the different ways to tap a one wire transmission line (one that is wirelessly powered at that). The very first example is perpendicularly positioned or as Tesla writes there "in the longitudinal sense", or "at right angles to it." I even made mention of this very point already. So you can also run the DVD7 idea this way, that is power loads off of that tap (node). So you're passing over this as if it wasn't there shows that you are not even looking at the figure or what he says about it, or what I have been pointing out. I can't force you guys to read Tesla, or care about any of this stuff, but is a little frustrating that I have to spell this all out again and again while you guys making these sweeping denials.

Now it is of special note that the intensity of the effect in this process is according to the rate of change in the impulse. So if you try and do this with mere sinusoidal you will get nothing. This is exactly what Tesla taught. It is basic Tesla. So welcome to beginning to learn about Tesla second chapter technology (after AC chapter).
Your dismissal of the charging loop as not a one wire transmission is not true. This is first of all a floating ground which is significant in other respects that it give opportunity to demonstrated what Walter Lewin hinted at and only partly demonstrated in showing Kirchhoff is not universal and this is non-conservative loop with more energy appearing than what is to be expected. But there is more than that very important point (which you guys don't appreciate or calculate). There is also important details about this loop that is completely different than a regular loop. For example, if I make a series of untuned impendences that are no matched impedances, and if I place a small inductor with load across it as the first in the series, the rest of them will be limited by size of that inductor. However, if the first is larger, then the rest will not be limited. This is very important because if we were talking about positive charging then we would have a limited flow to all the impedances no matter if the high resistance/impedance was placed at the beginning or the end of the chain. In this case, as I have frequently demonstrated, you can see that this reveals that the loop is really more of a one wire circuit with the diode being the beginning of it and the other end being the end. Of course, as mentioned, I can tap out of any nodal point as in figure 5 a and even create individual networks off of more single wire nodal points (when in resonance with proper impedance matching). But that is not my point here. I am referring to not being in resonance and not impedance matching. So in a non-ideal example we can see many series impedances along this charging path, which is a negative resistance path. Even so I can multiply the output many times and can see only a slight effect upon each other load as I add more and more. I showed 11 of such at the last meeting. I don't show the ideal setup because I am trying to explain and demonstrate this point first. And this is a quick and easy way to get real gain without any tuning from off the shelf parts.

Hi Rick,


I think I get what Tesla was doing and explaining in the true wireless lecture. His magnifying transmitter (and receiver) is basically the same principle of a. in Fig.5. The earth is the same as the wire and the capacities of sender and receiver are acting like the expanding and contracting bag analogy of Fig.4., but the main transfer goes through the wire, or the earth. So, in a sense his wireless is a one wire system.
His method is superior to the hertzian method because he used a one wire connection (earth) and used resonance for maximising power sent, while the hertzian method only sends waves through the air which decay rapidly after short distance. 
Tesla was using/sending high freq. sinusoidal signals in this case, so no short impulses (except for the cap discharge into the primary of his magnifier but only to get more oscillations, not to send impulses), so I don't know why the association of the one method and short impulses, although impulses can of course trigger resonance just as well.
Tesla's one wire system has no return, The output of the SG in dvd7 are yes impulses but it has a return (to the main SG coil), this is why I see a limit in as how many series coils can be placed in the line, as opposed to an open wire. What John showed with added series coil and FWBR is an analogy to b. in Fig.5. but in John's case the coil is part of the wire to create a node, while the FWBR across it basically represents b. But still, the wire has a return.


Anyway, my goal is to charge as many batteries as possible from as little input as possible, and I wouldn't mind using the one wire technique.


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on June 23, 2019, 07:30:10 PM
Rick,
Thanks for your reply on the spiking damage issue. I may have misunderstood but that was the nature of things back then amongst all the confusion.  :( However. I'm not confused and have not misunderstood how the secondary battery is getting charged by the energiser.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 23, 2019, 09:19:19 PM
Rick,


thanks for explaining, but don't be so hard on me man! :D  I admit I need to study Tesla more in depth. I know in the "hairpin" circuit he used impulses, but in the True wireless lecture he also wrote oscillations, that's probably why I misunderstood, It certainly isn't my intention to mislead anyone. Ok, I will dive into new experiments with the info you just kindly shared.


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 23, 2019, 09:32:40 PM
Mario,
This is the second part of my reply here. See my last reply to point 5 that I did miss.
It is true that people from those early days do need clarification. I have done this repeatedly in recent years with the SSG Mysteries revealed or solved video for example. But I have also explained these things during those early years. People tend to gloss over details, and this is somewhat involved to explain. But Bedini also created confusion on the subject at times. See my posting earlier today for details about these processes and Bedini's chaos.
1. You have not proven anything here and you gloss over this as if I have said something wrong. The buck boost circuit only confirms my point. It may not be new to you but you have not appreciated it at all it appears. What's the big deal you say? Well for one, if you make the L1 inductor a motor then you can power a real load in addition to the output load as I have mentioned with the fan kit or any of my motors. This is huge thing because people are not using the full potential of the circuit and all of the calculations you people make about the efficiency of the circuit exclude the full potential starting with this point. So if I run a motor, which I have done thousands of these for 15 years now, with this circuit then all of the energy produced from that motor would have to be considered as part of the Kirchhoff loop around the primary loop of the circuit. The work done in the motor across the inductor and fet will add up to the input energy right? So then the back end load is in addition to that. You see how all this has passed over you and everyone for many years? I don't easily disregard the potentials in circuits. In fact I teach people how to tape various dipoles (as my teacher Don Smith taught me) in their existing appliances without interrupting the normal operation of them. So here is the hypocrisy so to speak: when that circuit is a motor mainstream people will not add the boost part and instead will put a flyback snubber system in place to insure under unity. They will calculate everything so that Kirchhoff is paid royalties in his grave and everything is equal in and out. The L1 motor is the load and everything is fine. But when we do the boost we do not bother do add the motor because that would be two outputs. Anyway, the boost circuits do not disprove anything that I am saying and only support this. However, they are not the same thing exactly as you assume. The same thing applies however, that the rate of change will affect the output as well.
But the first point to admit is that if everyone calculates the maximum efficiency and energy by the combined loops and they make their conclusions, then what happens when we make L1 a motor? The total output doubles now and your calculations are all mistaken. This is exactly the point of my fan kit demonstration. I take a fan the draws so much power to produce so much CFMs. Now I move around two diodes and charge a second battery while the power input and CFMS are the same. Oops! I just proved a non-conservative example. I just doubled the output from the input. Oh boy, billions of fans have been made that way and manufacturers have ignored that (minus the thousands that people have converted over because of me) and have told you the COP of these fans. So you have to begin at this point in the Loving paths first stage process understanding. You guys refuse to admit these long demonstrated facts. It is actually old news on these forums. Some of you from the early days know better and refuse to admit what you know to be true. Again, if the current flow through L1 and the fet back to battery in the motor circuit adds up to unity in a motor circuit, and everyone admits that while using a flyback diode to ignore any potential gains that could be had there, then my point is proven that any additional gains in a buck boost system are above those in the primary loop. Again, people don't do a buck boost motor system as I do because of what it demonstrates. So instead of this disproving what I am saying, you only opened up the door to the fact it could be a gain system if you made L1 a motor coil. And this is exactly the same point I make about the Resonance kit where the L1 in a tank circuit could always be more than just a part of a filter circuit, but could be a transmitter (well is one actually) and part of a motor and more (if you let it be). And the capacitor could be a Stan M fuel cell with electrical output as well. It is just you guys are deliberately not creative here because you do not understand these processes in existing technology. You are reductionistic while oversimplifying things so that everything always supports the idolatrous religion of lower than unity, false conservation claims. Again, add up the current with your power meters and see for yourself. What does it take to power a motor on the primary side of the circuit with or without the boost side? Everyone is satisfied with the measurements without the boost side. Yet, that is given a rating and everything lines up with the dogma religion of mainstream theory. Now open up the boost side and your math is enlarged. Oops, you can't show that motor Rick. It can only be a boost inverter. Here comes the power police to say you are not allowed to do mechanical work as well.

You are going to have to pay attention to what I actually say and not gloss over what I say as you did with Tesla, and make it to be something else. What I am saying is that the negative energy is not a flow of current into the negative resistor (even though current can flow out of that battery after the event). Did you read that? Can you admit that I wrote this again? You may not agree with that or understand it, but that is what I said. The energy converges into the battery not as a result of electron flow from the coil. If that was the case then you would have calculated OU because (if you learned anything from the Walter Lewin demonstration) all the current flow is in the forward direction from the inductor through the fet back to the source battery. And if I am running the fan while charging up a battery at the rate of discharging the primary battery then I would have double the output. So this discharging of the coil is really not part of the current loop in what we are doing. With the boost circuit however, the loop is NOT in a floating ground configuration but back to the same loop and battery negative terminal that is a significant difference and produces a different affect. That is another subject to consider. You have to think in terms of source charges. The battery is the source charge, and when you create a loop it will discharge itself at the rate of the load. The inductor is a load and then becomes a source charge as well under a pulse condition. You pay for the charging of it, and the discharging of it becomes an additional gain if you let it. Your gains will depend on what you do. And there is a significant difference with a buck boost and the motor circuits we do. Of course you have to experience these things to know. However, as mentioned above, no one wants to make the inductor a motor but me, while making a boost system. This is very revealing. Anyway, the inductor is now a source charge and you can make a loop around it in various ways and benefit from that if you want to. But if you limited yourself to merely the electrical side or merely the mechanical side of things then that is your fault. BUT DON"T SAY WE ARE LIMITED TO ONE OR THE OTHER WHEN WE CAN DO BOTH!!

You misrepresent what I said about one battery charging another. You cannot charge a battery in series with another battery from the first battery. The primary battery is not charging the second battery. The inductor is the source charge, not the first battery. You can only charge another battery from a primary battery in parallel. And buck boots do not have the load in series with the primary like we do.
Also, any current measurements on the secondary side (loop) will be OU, but are not current actually. You can deflect a compass in different ways and we can cover that later if we need to. But any power measurements will not add up as to what is measured going into the battery and what is measured coming out of it. At best it shows the meters reveal OU of output. At worst they show you they are useless to use in the middle of the circuit as mentioned yesterday. So I already covered this yesterday. In the end you guys don't want to measure the final output and notice all the work being done, even as no one makes the buck boost a motor at the same time. Use your meter and admit all the work that can be done. So I made a motor drive a 26' boat with a buck books type circuit for three years rotating batteries around. That can't be anything important to you guys. Where were you when I gave the rides? You were stuck on making power measurements going into the batteries. Or spreading tails about that being a chemical consumable process. Well I'm still around and some boats have traveled around the world doing the same thing...
 Anyway, you have to change your theory and use your meters properly. You guys just don't understand what you are doing and keep assuming reductionistically, and reducing things to some aspect or thinking 2D rather than 3D. Live a little and open your mind!

You are making a lot of assumptions with your scope understanding. What is your scope loop anyway? It is it's own loop. It is only an attempt to represent what is happening in the real world. It is only trying to give this indication and showing THE RESULTS of the effects. You see the probes loop responding to the action, but it is not the action itself. These are not the same things. Turning on the switch at the start, or turning on the switch (when you turn off the fet) at the end, both create an action event where something very important happens. You all want to look at the scope to see the results of that action as if the results are everything. But it is the switch itself that is what is important. That is the inpulse, not the resulting oscillations. You think the impulse is merely the tail result, but it is not. This is a category fallacy. And you make it because you are limited in your understanding of things by boiling everything down to power measurements. But if I have not power measurements while I have real loads running, then what? Indeed, we have let people put their meters on demonstrations and have them be amazed. Even one German guy stormed out of the room in a fit in Hamburg. It cannot be! But it is. Deal with it.

So again, I ask, are you guys here to insist that everything boils down to "power" measurements? None of you wants to admit this. You guys refuse to address this fundamental point I have repeated over and over again. Ignore it in hopes no one notices. You are saying that OU if actually impossible because you insist that meters that show only the rate of wasting the energy can only be used to verify OU. But in that case you can never prove OU. Well, unless you do what you all refuse to do, and that is use the meters at the end loads being driven rather than in the middle. Who made the power meter such an authority?

Your statements about going from 12 to 48V ignore what I said the other day about producing over 200 times the output when I did that while not only going from 12 to 48V, but also from 12AH to 2000AH. So obviously this is NOT a matter of current. Again, I don't do mathematical or meter tricks. I do real loads in the real world, over time, and repeatedly over years. And so do thousands of my customers. If this was just a current transformation as you suggest, then what could I have possibly done to 48V of 2000AH batteries with the tiny 3 pole monopole kit? Why did I get almost 250 times the output or difference over using a 12V 12AH battery? If I limited myself to what you and G say then I would never have even tried that. Why bother, it wouldn't even do anything as the amps would be distributed and scattered. BUT NO!! These batteries are all negative resistors and the energy converges into them rather than dissipates as you assume. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I have been saying, and have no experience in these matters. If you have done experiments then you have blinded yourself from noticing these things. This is not new. I have been saying all this for years and when the skeptics actually did what I said they came back with WOW! you were right. I can't believe it. Some just changed the game and demanded more.

See you use negative in a different way. I'm not even referring to the scope when I talk about negative. It means opposite to positive or current. Not below the line. Sure, when a battery is charging it is a true negative resistor going below the zero to do that. But I am focused on the opposite phenomena rather than what is happening in reference to voltages above or below zero line.

2. No, negative charging does not damage the batteries. See last post for details. The only reason people think that is that they do not understand that once a battery has been negatively charged, depending on how much, it will take as much time to reverse that so that you can positively charge it again. It is fascinating to watch. It just doesn't take a charge and suddenly it does. So you have the battery negatively charging for a month and then you go to charge it with current and it can sit there just as long. And people who didn't bother to listen or just didn't know what they were doing with these things, would think it was damaged.
However, I will add that people damage their batteries in many ways and don't want to admit that. Then they blame some process for their wild treatment. This I see everywhere as almost everyone is sloppy. So you can abuse your batteries while attempting to negatively charge them. You can be very mistaken in that. So I can't help someone if I can't be there to see what they are doing. And believe me, I have visited more than one "professional" "expert" only to find so many things done wrong. The assumption on these forums is that everyone making a claims actually does everything perfectly or actually discloses every detail of what they are doing. I live in the real world and visit such people and find that not to be the case in almost 100% of the time. This is why you can see my focus on overcoming the bias assumptions practice. But this is something you guys keep assuming about any negative claim, that they have done everything they say they have or done it right. But when I come here and say or show something suddenly I'm assumed to be mistaken about something. This is a double standard I have fully exposed now.
As for what you should do, there is no answer to that. It depends on what you want to do. At this point you need to start over because you are fundamentally mistaken about several things. You need to deal with the things above here first or you will just blind yourself in whatever you do. All the different ways you ask about have their place. I do all of them for years now. Read what I wrote yesterday. I went to the cap dump because people really didn't want to do negative energy engineering. They wanted a battery rotator motor. However, you can still do the cap dump with the battery while doing this DVD7 third stage process before the cap dump.
Again, what I recommend is many things. To do the ideal is beyond you guys so I can't get into that while you are locked out of all OU considerations. You are still not at stage one level. This is not an insult but a fact. You are locked into power meter fallacies and reductionistic fallacies. This should be dealt with before you come and write on these forums. Because you don't even believe OU is possible. Why talk about how to charge batteries when you have no foundation for understanding the process? I don't find any of you acknowledging anything I say as you do with everyone else. This seems more than hostile to me, it seems you do not want to admit anything. No one even wants to admit that you can't prove anything over the forum. Why not? How come people?

3. See I can give credit to you guys even when you can't do that to me in anything. So I say, yes, you are moving in the right direction to use a negatively charged battery to be the input with doing something with a capacitor. It is a little more than that and some circuits were posted showing the proper way of doing that. But rotating batteries is so olden days to me that I don't bother with that for years when you can do the third stage process which can allow for the input battery to not discharge. Same with everyone trying to get A to power the gate driver input. That's find, but when you learn the 1/4W relationships you don't need to try and produce current and shuttle around current in the system. So again, there is the basic involved ways of doing things and the ideal ways (which require understanding of how things work, and precise measurements with resonance). Anyway, this point number 3 is about converting the negative to positive. If you play around enough you will figure out your answers. But unless you deal with your foundational problems you will always doubt your results. Start from the beginning and then the rest will flow properly and smoothly. Of course you can do what you want but you can't say you are doing what we are doing.

4. While the scope shows 1V more or less depending on the cap size, etc., you will find if you have a very expensive very high frequency scope and probes that the scope and probe are only giving you an approximation of the real world and are but measuring the assumed results. This is important when dealing with these things in the commercial real world. As you will blow out parts and not realize why. It is because things are not as assumed with impulsing. The spike can be much different and extremely high if you have the most expensive equipment. But if you only use 100mhz equipment then you are what you put into it. This is not a ramble but is significant.
Again, people talk as if there is one setup or one set of values. I shared some details already that you even quoted from. I said you want a low ESR cap with high voltage. The uf or pf depends on what you are wanting to do. This is the problem with the forums as people seek to throw some parts together to hope to produce some results instead of starting with a working system and learning from it. Anyway, I am not faulting you here for asking because that is a good thing. I'm merely saying that the values depend on what you want to do. Too high uf will ruin the batteries over time because it will be like hitting the concrete with a hammer and making hairline cracks in the plates that get bigger over time. Bedini never took any time to do loading himself so he never understood those things. I realized this early on.
So you want a voltage above the spike (yet the spike is much much higher than you think--depending on your scope and probes as mentioned). And the rest of the answer beyond low ESR is depending on the size of your system. You will learn this by experience.
Yes I have built everything people have shown on the forums and more in that regards. Even the neon bulbs have their place in some applications. My problem is that I can make these things do whatever I want so it isn't so much about finding the right parts but using any parts to do whatever I want. There is not one ideal system that needs to be focused on, there are endless ideal models that could be given. I no longer teach like everyone in fixating on one system. I teach in terms of themes so that you can see all of your options and move beyond certain specific parts. The key is quality parts. Then again, I don't want to give the impression that anyone ever has to do the ideal setup either. No one needs the idea as it is way more powerful than anyone needs, it is grid level stuff. Thus my focus is doing something rather than nothing. So the first thing you need to do is the basics. Actually understand stage 1 before trying to deal with the finer points. Obviously you will not listen to that, but I had to warn you anyway.

That should cover everything. As I can see, there is really nothing more to say but repeating myself. So let's see if anyone admits anything at all.

Hi Rick,
I appreciate your long reply to Hoppy, and I appreciate you trying to explain how things really were. But I would appreciate even more if you could be more precise technically, else the confusion will go on forever.
1. I am not writing the following to contradict what you say about negative energy, and I DO understand the negative spikes with a fast change rate and that they are a trigger for converging a different form of energy to batteries, and that lower impedance in both, batteries and output wires help things a lot. BUT, if you keep saying that a) there is no current on the output, and b) that you can't charge a battery that's at a higher voltage than the primary you are not being precise and this keeps confusing people. Any DC-DC converter relies on buck-boost coil collapse (flyback) technology to convert lower to higher or higher to lower voltage, so charging a battery from another battery at any voltage is really not a special feature. Now about the current on the output, if you connect the scope to the switching device you see the typical h wave of an SG or the wave of a solid state oscillator. What we see below the zero line is the coil being powered from the primary battery, immediately followed by the neg. spike we see on the positive side on the scope (because of how we connect the scope) which results from the coil being switched off but not wanting to invert its current flow, immediately followed by the current starting to flow from the resulting collapsing magnetic field of the coil. So, depending on what we connect to the output we will see an according discharge of current also. If we discharge into a 12V battery the current discharge pulse will be almost as wide in time and amplitude (on the scope) as the power pulse, depending on coil resistance, device efficiency, SG or solid state, etc... If we discharge into a 48V battery we will see a much narrower discharge puls after the spike, because the discharging coil automatically adapts to the load voltage and in this case gives higher voltage but less current. This is just to be precise. There definitely is the negative spike which triggers another event we end up finding in the battery, but to say there is NO current and a battery should not charge is not right in my view. The amount of current can vary a lot depending on load voltage, tuning, etc... but there is some.
2. I am not a person of many words, but I like clarity and precision. I couldn't find a straight answer to Hoppy's question whether negative charging damages batteries or not. Would you suggest charging directly or use cap discharge? Also, on the output, would you suggest putting the batteries in series rather than in parallel (even if the impedance would be higher in series)?
3. To rotate negatively charged batteries, why not simply put a big capacitor across the input, since it converts to positive and is what inverters have on the input which we can use?
4. You said you've used SCR cap discharge triggered by a 1n4007 diode, that would dump the cap at 1V above the battery right? What cap size did you use mostly and what aprox. rate? I know it depends on many things. Do you recommend dumping a cap with a neon triggered SCR dump at 90V? I've built probably 40 or 50 variations of circuits from HV small caps to low voltage big caps and everything in between, so I'm kind of curious among all the confusion that's around what you would finally suggest as the best cap dump voltage from your experience.
5. I suppose you missed my post 643?
thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 23, 2019, 10:04:59 PM
So can anyone find this supposed quote from Bedini? Otherwise then let's just say it was a mistake to say so. I mean, the guy spent many years saying just the opposite, so if no quote is produced in a clear context then the idea should not even be considered. In the end it doesn't matter what Bedini said now that it is clear to everyone that he was a liar unto the end.
As for your second point, merely saying you are not mistaken about charging doesn't really help anyone here. Again, what is in someone's head means nothing when the real world disproves it.

Rick,
Thanks for your reply on the spiking damage issue. I may have misunderstood but that was the nature of things back then amongst all the confusion.  :( However. I'm not confused and have not misunderstood how the secondary battery is getting charged by the energiser.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 23, 2019, 10:30:24 PM
Mario,
You all can see that I treat A the same way as I do you. My response to you is according to your own words and also in the context of everything people like G have posted over the last week or so (and the whole history of this forum to some extent). I deal with thousands of people all over the world, so this isn't about what you wrote and what I replied to. I'm speaking to everyone here as people are reading and will read in the future. When you had pointed out the second (b) image and yet claimed this was not about impulsing, what was I to think. There is a pattern here with several people really pushing for mainstream theory here that makes OU impossible and denies the possibility of gains, and limits everyone to power meters. Also, none of you are willing to admit anything I have said. This is incredible. Out of all the things I have shared you guys find nothing to agree with or appreciate. So this comes across like you guys have an agenda, as clearly many people have on these forums. I am not new to this and have seen this right from the beginning of the internet in the 90s. Regular people don't do those things. They politely converse with give and take exchanges. But here I offer you guys so many points and you all know I have demonstrated many OU systems over the years, so why the silence? I guess this posting from you is the first acknowledgement of any point I have made so far from those of you who give all appearance of not believing OU to be possible, and/or being locked out from it by your assumptions.
Anyway, the relevant point for you to consider while you read Tesla, is as Dollard points out, that there really is 4 different types of energy in our circuit systems that we need to distinguish from each other and not confuse: AC, DC, Oscillatory, and Impulse. AC must be distinguished from Oscillatory energy, and DC is not Impulse as the use of the words "pulsed DC" confuses people. The assumptions are most relevant in relation to OU considerations. Again, DC is fundamentally different than impulse because YOU DON'T CONSIDER THE TURNING ON AND OFF OF DC WHEN YOU MEASURE DC. And Impulse is not what follows from the impulse. Impulse is the moment of the switch and the nature of what happens at the moment. Just like people are not what results from their actions. Again, when you measure DC you never bother to measure the turning on and off of the circuit, and how it effects the whole environment. So even DC is never just DC. There is always an impulse at the beginning and end. It is only those who want to oversimplify things that ignore such details. And that discussion brings everyone back to the true of what Walter Lewin demonstrated and pointed out.
 And while AC and oscillatory energy are also similar they also need to be contrasted in these studies. These four things need to be separated into their own categories when studying Tesla, what I say, and in all OU studies. Glossing them together helps no one.

Rick,
thanks for explaining, but don't be so hard on me man! :D  I admit I need to study Tesla more in depth. I know in the "hairpin" circuit he used impulses, but in the True wireless lecture he also wrote oscillations, that's probably why I misunderstood, It certainly isn't my intention to mislead anyone. Ok, I will dive into new experiments with the info you just kindly shared.
thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 24, 2019, 12:07:21 AM
Mario,
You all can see that I treat A the same way as I do you. My response to you is according to your own words and also in the context of everything people like G have posted over the last week or so (and the whole history of this forum to some extent). I deal with thousands of people all over the world, so this isn't about what you wrote and what I replied to. I'm speaking to everyone here as people are reading and will read in the future. When you had pointed out the second (b) image and yet claimed this was not about impulsing, what was I to think. There is a pattern here with several people really pushing for mainstream theory here that makes OU impossible and denies the possibility of gains, and limits everyone to power meters. Also, none of you are willing to admit anything I have said. This is incredible. Out of all the things I have shared you guys find nothing to agree with or appreciate. So this comes across like you guys have an agenda, as clearly many people have on these forums. I am not new to this and have seen this right from the beginning of the internet in the 90s. Regular people don't do those things. They politely converse with give and take exchanges. But here I offer you guys so many points and you all know I have demonstrated many OU systems over the years, so why the silence? I guess this posting from you is the first acknowledgement of any point I have made so far from those of you who give all appearance of not believing OU to be possible, and/or being locked out from it by your assumptions.
Anyway, the relevant point for you to consider while you read Tesla, is as Dollard points out, that there really is 4 different types of energy in our circuit systems that we need to distinguish from each other and not confuse: AC, DC, Oscillatory, and Impulse. AC must be distinguished from Oscillatory energy, and DC is not Impulse as the use of the words "pulsed DC" confuses people. The assumptions are most relevant in relation to OU considerations. Again, DC is fundamentally different than impulse because YOU DON'T CONSIDER THE TURNING ON AND OFF OF DC WHEN YOU MEASURE DC. And Impulse is not what follows from the impulse. Impulse is the moment of the switch and the nature of what happens at the moment. Just like people are not what results from their actions. Again, when you measure DC you never bother to measure the turning on and off of the circuit, and how it effects the whole environment. So even DC is never just DC. There is always an impulse at the beginning and end. It is only those who want to oversimplify things that ignore such details. And that discussion brings everyone back to the true of what Walter Lewin demonstrated and pointed out.
 And while AC and oscillatory energy are also similar they also need to be contrasted in these studies. These four things need to be separated into their own categories when studying Tesla, what I say, and in all OU studies. Glossing them together helps no one.
Mr Rick Friedrich,can you fill us in on this device please 

re tinman link=topic=12736.msg480799#msg480799 date=1460730080]

http://energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc14/index.html


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 24, 2019, 12:20:12 AM
Rick, holy shit slow down! I haven't been posting for a long time on this forum so please don't jump at me like this... Don't know what others here are up to, but you don't need to be on the defensive side and slap back at me as I'm surely not trying to insult you or not admit anything or acknowledge what you say. I accidentally checked the threads here and saw your post about DVD7 which is something that I had spent quite some time on years back because I was very interested in the one wire subject.
I think this time it's you who didn't read everything I wrote because I never said that I believe OU is impossible and that all I see or measure is about current, not at all! I believe in negative energy and that it converges to the loads and is different from our normal current. OK? Clear? I JUST said that after the negative event the coil also discharges some current, ok? That's it. There's no need to shout that I'm not admitting anything and that I may have an agenda... I perfectly know that the primary charges the coil which then becomes the source that charges the secondary, You may think I'm a complete beginner in building these circuits. I'm not, I've built them for the last 10 or more years, my circuits have rise/fall times of about 30 nanoseconds.
After the "big confusion" I quietly kept working on my own (and other projects) to figure things out by actually doing the experiments, but I never really had a chance to compare notes and ask someone with more experience in the SG matter the questions I asked you. Not everyone can invest as much time on this as you do. I'm not here to contradict you, I'm actually all ears, trying to learn more.


Mario









Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 24, 2019, 12:36:23 AM
Rick's latest video: and they're getting longer -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiK0IktPWe4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiK0IktPWe4)


And they are free -
I haven't watched it yet.....................................................
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 02:16:43 AM
I'm not sure how this forum works in reference to the numbers and letters above the link are. I'm assuming that is some thread on this forum about that subject.
While I was around when that was filmed I choose to not make any statements about these kinds of stories because they are a long the lines of "he said, she said" and where are any replications of this? This ends up being just another story-telling matter. When I had my shop in Hayden Idaho all sorts of characters would show up at any time and so I heard all the stories you can imagine and more. Some stories were real but you could see most of these people (and I'm talking about big names to) were given over to exaggerated stories. I really haven't found anyone in that huge body of people (many of which were old friends of John) that gave me confidence of being very careful to be accurate in their judgments about history. It was like a bunch of old retired people talking about old stories that had been retold (like photocopies) over and over again until they changed into something else. John was the prime example of such storytelling. And along the lines of what I said earlier today I eventually came up with an estimation of John which I think was a fair assessment. I figured about 85% of what John said was not true and was in the way of him just speculating/pontificating/joking (although he wasn't much of a joker). And I think about 15% of the time he was dead on. He had a look in his eye at such times that was clear and I didn't find it to be wrong information. I have studied micro expressions and body language over the years and made these observations. I think everyone in his life would have agreed with this. So there was a lot of filler verbal diarrhea that we all had to hear and which only a few people called him out on. His wife was one of them and as we would go out to eat every Friday as a family special night whenever John would try to pull something over beyond his knowledge she would put him in his place. "Fat Larry" would do this a well when he sometimes came over. Gary would do that daily but in more of a joking sense. Anyway, I can go through all the videos and can generally determine when he was in that truth and accurate mode and when he was just talking like he was with the boys at the bar. And that's what the Conventions became after my final 2011 meeting. Even at that meeting John mystified things, and also at the 2010 meeting about the Ferris wheel. But after that the meetings were at his bar. That's how I last remember him, drinking more and more. The video series was largely of such stories that should not be trusted. Yes because he was a liar as we can see about his claim about the window motor being his invention from 1971. But also about many minor stories. So it is impossible for the public to sort through all of his words and stories to be able to tell what is true from what is his guessing, to what is his exaggeration, to what is flat out lie where he was intending to deceive.

I stopped watching the video series probably around half way. I was there for many of them, and Tony asked for my help with some of the early ones. But I knew that John was just rambling nonsense after a being there for some time. Unfortunately Tony really didn't know John and he also fell for all these stories. Now he is burned for putting the 1971 false lying statement on the front cover of his publication. That's not want he wanted to be known for. John was convincing storyteller. I often went out to dinner with them when Tony came to film. John was talking it up more than ever.

Maybe the worst example of this was ongoing over the years with what Gary would call the "voodoo box" which sat under the bench or on the desk for a good three years. This was supposedly from John Cejka. John Bedini actually did two videos on this I believe. I never watched them because why would I bother to? He actually said that if a picture of someone was placed in the box and he put a spider over the picture then the person would be bitten in a way that the spider would be proportionately the same size to the picture and thus they would be killed. Of course, like the Lockerage device, he never demonstrated anything of all that nonsense he would say in that 85% of the time bar talk ramble. Gary used many colorful words to call him an idiot for spewing such nonsense. So yes, I heard it all from too many people in that camp to mention. Including Tom Bearden to was also given to storytelling. And I called him and his best friend out on doing that. I told them they watched too much star Trak. These guys were all really given over to sci fy and conspiracy theory. It was an indulgence they could not resist. Believe that which you assume to be true, that which sounds like a good story.

The problem is that many of these people were no joke in their accomplishments and many things were real. So it was hard to separate the real from the stories. I got to hear all of it and so have a lot of inside information. But I don't trust any of these people that I can remember. Every one of them with Bedini connections was given over to that or to believing such stories. I had access to a lot of stuff and even helped John copy all of the Cejka files and many other things over the years.

So here you have some good information and the rest a bunch of stories that you could never be able to determine what was real because it was bar talk that was meant to be entertaining. I guess I tolerated it because I was trying to learn anything that may be of value. But eventually when I realized everything I could not stomach that foolishness at all. So that is why I cannot even watch the DVDs. But at least DVD7 was sound and worthy. There are a few others that probably are the same at times in the videos. But I see that one was done on the Tesla Switch as he falsely called it. Obviously he never warned anyone that it kills the batteries (yet I showed from a clip of him at my 2010 Convention admitting the Watson machine killed the batteries because of the same process of switching rapidly back and forth between charge and load).

The video is of that storytelling nature. Maybe no one will ever known how many exaggerations he made in that video. Did he really have the parts. Someone posted a statement that they were merely the parts of a failed attempt. Why would you do a video and not show how to do it? This is prime entertainment for conspiracy theorists. But those of us who hate speculation find no interest. I work with certain things that are practical.

So there were many items laying around for years with stories attached to them. Peter is probably the only one left who would know the significance of them. What you have to go back to is that short clip I recently posted from John in 1984
 https://youtu.be/KJlcQc8CrRY
Listen to every word. Notice how he says at the end of my selected portion that after the 1984 book he then sought to find motors that could do that. So all the claims that he knew these things from his service years contradict that candid admission. The truth was Bearden was someone who had access to all this stuff from his military years. And many of these crossed over into that area. So that is why this is all mixed up as well. You are going have lots of disinformation because of that. Bearden passed a lot of stuff on to John in those early years. John wasn't an inventor of any of it. He just was around a lot of people who really could do amazing things. John helped a few of them but I didn't find him to really have any exceptional skills besides storytelling. Yes he made some nice looking prototypes and fancy classic hotrods from the ground up. But he had help doing those as well.

Anyway, I tried to answer the bigger question that pertains to all of John's storytelling and all those kind of people associated with him from years back. And maybe you can understand why I insist upon purity in this research and don't tolerate assumptions or belief for or against claims without sufficient reason. Such storytelling and rumors and assumptions just waste everyone's time, money and faith. These people use such as a tool to be considered cool, or in the know, or whatever. Someone just said on my youtube video I just posted about Aaron Mirakami's lies in the comments that these guys are enabled by everyone who feeds off of the gossip and bar talk. I see that I contributed to promoting Bedini so that is why I am trying to undo that damage now. But looking back I see that all this was just part of the government's continued agenda to create the conspiracy class of people/movement where the free energy people are just a sub group. Each section/sector has it's people to guide the populace in a given direction. John and others were examples of that as far as their fruit shows. Because in the end, after years of doing this full time, the result is exactly what the establishment would want: the vast majority in chaos unsure of how to be energy independent while feeling good that they were entertained by stories that served no practical purpose. I don't speculate as to what people's specific motives were for pushing that agenda. But it should be obvious by now that there was a clear agenda. Cross that line against such by promoting clarity and showing real progress and you will get the treatment I go or worse.

Mr Rick Friedrich,can you fill us in on this device please 

re tinman link=topic=12736.msg480799#msg480799 date=1460730080]

http://energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc14/index.html
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 02:23:28 AM
I think I watched that yesterday  :P It's game over for Aaron finally. He sunk himself. The only way out is to admit that Bedini was a liar as well. Anyway, if you don't care about these people and their disinformation in the free energy community then don't bother with the video.
Rick's latest video: and they're getting longer -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiK0IktPWe4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiK0IktPWe4)
And they are free -
I haven't watched it yet.....................................................
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 04:03:28 AM
Mario, I accept your statements, but I was just responding to your words. Perhaps some people think they believe in OU is possible but my point is that they have put themselves into a belief system that makes it impossible to experience it. If you really believe the things you said then you cannot experience OU. Whether I was talking about you directly or by what your implied or about the others, what is important is that people be clear what they believe about power meters, resonance gains, and related subjects. Because what I see is some people acting like they believe in OU but really they are just trying to disprove it. Or I have found the reverse of that. Many skeptics actually attack believers in the inner hope that they can answer their questions.

Ok, it is important to closely examine what I wrote a few hours ago about the coil and current on the second loop. In people's wild and crazy panic for free energy they run so fast to get it that they don't look at the details or care about anything that isn't a certain amount of energy for their needs. In that craze to disregard the details. So looking at the details of what I shared we have to come to grips with the fact that the math does not add up. In mainstream understanding there is really no room for current to flow in reverse or do be able to do any real work across the charging battery. Therefore all the claims here is that any influence on the battery is merely apparent, or if it charges it charges as a consumable and ruins the battery, etc. Well that is crazy because we can replace the battery with a 100W LED and be blinded by the light. But my point is that we need to start where Walter Lewin former Physics at MIT left off. Yes go to war with that Electroboom fool. Again, the math covers the forward current. So any reverse flow can't be current or else you have a major problem with Kirchhoff and the total I the loop is more than the input current. Now this isn't current but it can cause current. Any recipient along that path can become charged as a negative resistor, but that isn't current charging. But if a battery or capacitor is such, it can output current in it's own loops with loads. So what I am pointing out is that you can measure current in those places with power meters but anything before that is not current. It is not important if some current comes through as much as the mainstream theory has no place for any useful energy to be there at all. The point to be settled upon by everyone before they can go anywhere at all with OU research with circuits is to admit what we see with the fan example. The regular fan circuit loop is a full loop where everything adds up. Now we add ANOTHER body by moving the diode to include the charging battery. This other body is not part of the primary loop but loosely associated with it. They hang out together ya know  8) Yet all the work done to and by the charging battery is now gain that cannot be accounted for by Kirchhoff and mainstream college level physics (apart form Lewin). And if you don't like batteries just put a big 100W LED module there to see for yourself. With a cap as it may blow out. So the fan runs as it did before but with this extra gain. Not more efficient but OU. Add a gate driver to the fets and increase the rate of change as we do in our motors and now you get even more gains in the output with greater efficiency on the primary side. Or again, make the buckboost inductor a motor in the same way. Or the resonance inductor in the tank a transmitter and/or motor and/or make the capacitor into a Stan water cell. Is anyone willing to admit these things? This is the first step people. When we add more (loving paths) loads to the regular circuitry, which is adding more "bodies" to the primary loop, we have more total output, significantly more. So the search on this forum for years has been right in front of you in so many electronics around you. Just think a little. Again, mainstream circuitry always ignores one side of the two. It either ignores the electrical production in the motors or the magnetic in inductors for electrical use.

So what I am saying is the math does not add up when you actually do both kinds of loads at the same time. And this is the basic thing you have to start understanding, stage 1, before you get to the more advanced stuff (which is actually more of the same along with some other things). So why doesn't anyone want to admit these things? No matter what prestige jargon twisted math is used, the bottom line is that if the fan now has a battery charging, or a light powered significantly, then we have real OU and a complete violation conservation showing as Lewin said, that Kirchhoff is only a special case of Faraday.

In your case you just need to get these things clear then. Lean less on your scope to tell you what is going on unless you want to use it for phasing. Remember, power measurement only tells you how fast you are killing the particular source charge in a loop. So what if there is no loop and your meter is showing power? And what if the source is not discharging? Haha then you throw a fit and run out of the room  >:( :'( :o

Once people get the basic Loving Paths idea of expanding the single body (selfish) loop to a many body sympathetic or symbiotic network with floating grounds then they will be ready for OU. But without that the are locked into only losses in the death circle. The idea in DVD7 is just creating additional loving paths along the one wire to the charging batter in the second loop of stage 1. The spiritual analogy works to drive the point home in more ways than one. Each node along that line can create additional loops or single wire outputs as/at nodes. This will automatically create limited gains. I have tons of inductors and transformers, chokes, and etc., at my shop and have put as much as I wanted along that path and there is no end. Without tuning it is not the same of course, but it is still very significant. But many of you will not even be interested in doing that because you have not settled the first point and got out of the matrix bondage of the monolithic closed loop. All your energy needs are found in this paragraph alone. You don't even need to do what Tesla did or what we do with the impedance matching resonance and be able to multiply as many loving paths networks as you desire.

As for any confusion from those earlier days. I have attempted to complete the SSG project. No the Aaron books don't properly address what is needed. The monopole geometry has nothing to do with what you need to understand. The magnets have nothing to do with it either. The exact parts used does not either. The trigger coil is not necessary either (even though it is another loving path loop with it's bifilar gains). What is necessary is to first understand the difference between a single (closed) and many (open) body system. And to use the impulse rather than constant current, sharp rate of change rather than gradual. Appreciate just that for what its worth and then DO MORE OF THE SAME loving paths for more sharing blessings! Never mind any parts until this is settled. Understand how it works and don't just play around hoping to stumble upon something with parts shuffling.

Now that was just with two wire loops. Same is done with one wire and no loop. This is chapter 2 in the book. Then chapter 3 is no wires... Chapter 4 (not of that Resonance book) is doing the same with magnetic loops... Once you see my Free energy Cheat Sheet you will see all the key themes and will be able to understand how all or most free energy systems work and why others don't. The mystery is over people. Then you will see how Patrick Keely changed the words and diagrams of all the systems he shows and will be able to make them work. Or which ones can't work and why.

Rick, ... slow down! I haven't been posting for a long time on this forum so please don't jump at me like this... Don't know what others here are up to, but you don't need to be on the defensive side and slap back at me as I'm surely not trying to insult you or not admit anything or acknowledge what you say. I accidentally checked the threads here and saw your post about DVD7 which is something that I had spent quite some time on years back because I was very interested in the one wire subject.
I think this time it's you who didn't read everything I wrote because I never said that I believe OU is impossible and that all I see or measure is about current, not at all! I believe in negative energy and that it converges to the loads and is different from our normal current. OK? Clear? I JUST said that after the negative event the coil also discharges some current, ok? That's it. There's no need to shout that I'm not admitting anything and that I may have an agenda... I perfectly know that the primary charges the coil which then becomes the source that charges the secondary, You may think I'm a complete beginner in building these circuits. I'm not, I've built them for the last 10 or more years, my circuits have rise/fall times of about 30 nanoseconds.
After the "big confusion" I quietly kept working on my own (and other projects) to figure things out by actually doing the experiments, but I never really had a chance to compare notes and ask someone with more experience in the SG matter the questions I asked you. Not everyone can invest as much time on this as you do. I'm not here to contradict you, I'm actually all ears, trying to learn more.


Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 24, 2019, 05:22:38 AM
.. Once you see my Free energy Cheat Sheet

Rick... where?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 06:13:54 AM
It's in the works. It will be always a work in progress but will be a bit before I will release a first edition. I have to keep it as short as I can without being ambiguous or creating misunderstanding. The hard part is choosing suitable words when people use words differently.

.. Once you see my Free energy Cheat Sheet
Rick... where?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on June 24, 2019, 10:36:22 AM
Rick,
With respect please ease up. you are in some of your text coming across to some of us as attacking our intelligence and almost branding us as idiots. You need to respect that like you, some of us have developed fairly rigid beliefs on this subject. I've already stated my view on how the energiser works and your very long and detailed posts are not going to convince me that I'm wrong. I would not dare posting repeatedly in the same way as you, almost trying to coerce folk by words into my way of thinking. I appreciate that you are sincere and only wish to do good but you must realise that your method of communication tends to raise one's hackles! I'm not saying that you are plain wrong in your understanding, just that through my many years of experimenting with energisers and the like, I have experienced nothing out of convention in regards to its modus-opwerandi. I do not wish to enter into an in depth technical debate with you, as I did with John way back in time, as this would clearly be a futile exercise. You have well and truly stated your case for folk to consider. Now is the time to ease up.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 24, 2019, 11:14:10 AM
Rick,
With respect please ease up. you are in some of your text coming across to some of us as attacking our intelligence and almost branding us as idiots. You need to respect that like you, some of us have developed fairly rigid beliefs on this subject. I've already stated my view on how the energiser works and your very long and detailed posts are not going to convince me that I'm wrong. I would not dare posting repeatedly in the same way as you, almost trying to coerce folk by words into my way of thinking. I appreciate that you are sincere and only wish to do good but you must realise that your method of communication tends to raise one's hackles! I'm not saying that you are plain wrong in your understanding, just that through my many years of experimenting with energisers and the like, I have experienced nothing out of convention in regards to its modus-opwerandi. I do not wish to enter into an in depth technical debate with you, as I did with John way back in time, as this would clearly be a futile exercise. You have well and truly stated your case for folk to consider. Now is the time to ease up.
   With out  prejudice.
I agree Rick does appear to have some 'baggage' problems he 'needs to come to terms with' or sort out for his own good perhaps shut him self of from and move on.
Kind regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 24, 2019, 12:40:35 PM
People on this tread might be interested in this.

US patent no US 9,564.268 B2
it shows how to extract energy from the ground, it's a standard lithuanian procedure since Teslars time!
One has to ask is the (Un Scrupulous) Patent system becoming corrupt in the interest of high corporate financial favour?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on June 24, 2019, 12:52:31 PM
AG//quote //
 But here is just not the place!//end quote
//Things related to the FE community its history [unknown ?] etc etc
are of course important to readers here .
// Chet
Ultimately the most important thing is the truth // especially as it applies to   energy harvesting.



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 24, 2019, 01:36:25 PM
AG//quote //
 But here is just not the place!//end quote
//Things related to the FE community its history [unknown ?] etc etc
are of course important to readers here .
// Chet
Ultimately the most important thing is the truth // especially as it applies to   energy harvesting.
Chet could you or Nick please highlight and point to us the useful technical points of importance you are referring to other wise they appear to be lost in the confusional side tracking issues.


regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on June 24, 2019, 01:43:40 PM
I too felt your statement to Broad brush and lacking definition.
and it must be remembered
this is Ricks thread for the moment...
you take him "with his baggage "
or Change the channel .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 24, 2019, 02:07:19 PM
Is it Ricks channel? indeed well well news travels!
Question for nick, in the newman device Mr newman obviously had a different set up to the window JB device
in that Mr Newman used a 'contact breaker switch interrupter' per revolution. Well to be exact didn't the energy
he spoke of coming from his spinning magnetic pump effect and his contact breaking com/slip ring mechanism
so in effect if one was to replace the ferromagnets with Neo's the effect would me some what spectacular ?
If that is so why don't all your devices exploited this phenomena but use a semiconductor that incurs losses
instead as the short resistance impedance would require about 10 x irf640's in parallel to acquire the correct
impedance however the BEMF might pose a problem, if one did the job correctly and before some one suggests
using an SCR it has a resistance in the 5 ohm region witch makes it useless along with any bipolar device  ;D

PS thanks for the advice.
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 05:17:54 PM
I accept you backing out of this. I have dealt here with the fundamental reasons for this forum and the nature of discussing OU itself. Again, I have found no acknowledgement of anything that I have said from most of you while you have responded positively to negative claims. I have provided more demonstrations of my OU claims than anyone in the free energy community and have spent 15 years teaching on the subject in person and on forums. I made a video for you guys because you were discussing my setup here, while I told you that none of that was given with the expectation (title of video also) it was a claim that should be believed without personal experience. But you think you guys would at least say something positive about all this, and grant something. Instead there is a silence or denial and now silencing me. I guess this was to be expected. I'll take it that I went too far in showing you guys the secrets of OU. And that just won't be tolerated.
Rick,
With respect please ease up. you are in some of your text coming across to some of us as attacking our intelligence and almost branding us as idiots. You need to respect that like you, some of us have developed fairly rigid beliefs on this subject. I've already stated my view on how the energiser works and your very long and detailed posts are not going to convince me that I'm wrong. I would not dare posting repeatedly in the same way as you, almost trying to coerce folk by words into my way of thinking. I appreciate that you are sincere and only wish to do good but you must realise that your method of communication tends to raise one's hackles! I'm not saying that you are plain wrong in your understanding, just that through my many years of experimenting with energisers and the like, I have experienced nothing out of convention in regards to its modus-opwerandi. I do not wish to enter into an in depth technical debate with you, as I did with John way back in time, as this would clearly be a futile exercise. You have well and truly stated your case for folk to consider. Now is the time to ease up.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 05:21:34 PM
And yet you ask me questions after this!?!?
We all have baggage in this world. Some of us want to help others reduce their baggage or prevent others from having it. We learn from other people's mistakes.
   With out  prejudice.
I agree Rick does appear to have some 'baggage' problems he 'needs to come to terms with' or sort out for his own good perhaps shut him self of from and move on.
Kind regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 24, 2019, 05:33:47 PM
What mistakes would those be then ?  :)

Again Question for nick, in the newman device Mr newman obviously had a different set up to the window JB device
in that Mr Newman used a 'contact breaker switch interrupter' per revolution. Well to be exact didn't the energy
he spoke of coming from his spinning magnetic pump effect and his contact breaking com/slip ring mechanism
so in effect if one was to replace the ferromagnets with Neo's the effect would be some what spectacular ?
If that is so why don't all your devices exploited this phenomena but use a semiconductor that incurs losses
instead as the short resistance impedance would require about 10 x irf640's in parallel to acquire the correct
impedance however the BEMF might pose a problem, if one did the job correctly and before some one suggests
using an SCR it has a resistance in the 5 ohm region witch makes it useless along with any bipolar device

I will get my religious bud'y to pray for you.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on June 24, 2019, 05:59:15 PM
What mistakes would those be then ?  :)

Again Question for nick, in the newman device Mr newman obviously had a different set up to the window JB device
in that Mr Newman used a 'contact breaker switch interrupter' per revolution. Well to be exact didn't the energy
he spoke of coming from his spinning magnetic pump effect and his contact breaking com/slip ring mechanism
so in effect if one was to replace the ferromagnets with Neo's the effect would me some what spectacular ?
If that is so why don't all your devices exploited this phenomena but use a semiconductor that incurs losses
instead as the short resistance impedance would require about 10 x irf640's in parallel to acquire the correct
impedance however the BEMF might pose a problem, if one did the job correctly and before some one suggests
using an SCR it has a resistance in the 5 ohm region witch makes it useless along with any bipolar device  ;D


   AG:   Sorry, but I'm not looking into Newman's noisy spinning moving devices. Nor any others like it. Nor am I trying to reinvent the wheel.
    Rick:  I feel sorry for what you are going through. But, what we really need here is more proof that adding more and more coils, (hundreds), does not affect the input. And more importantly, does not affect the total brightness in a negative way.   If there really is more output than input, then this needs to be recycled, to self run the device. Until this is shown and proven, the negative speculation will continue. No amount of words and long explanations from you will change that.
   So, please SHOW it self running itself.   Not everyone believes that every OU device that are shown HERE are faked.
   Hopefully, Nelson's devices are not faked, and do self run. Although he won't admit it. Good call, for him. Better safe than sorry.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 24, 2019, 06:07:25 PM
Nick the Newman device i have was never finished, what I did do was to add JB bridge circuit to it on vero before i go any further
It's no where near OU but if I pulse it at a fixed PW with a ne555 i get one hell of a tulk force but i have no ols com or brushes i can use to really test it in as true Newman device.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on June 24, 2019, 06:19:45 PM
   AG:  Good luck... your ideas are valid, but, perhaps your device is not.   True magnet motors don't need an external input, other that what the magnets provide, so there are no loses, compared to what you are trying to do. But, they are still noisy spinning motors, and I am not interested in that type of technologies.
Only in self running solid state devices. Like what I'm working on.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 06:22:08 PM
Well it's not my channel/thread, however I would expect more positive response about some of the foundational points I have addressed. At least something. The silence is revealing. Some of you guys are not wanting to reveal your true positions on the foundations and that should concern everyone reading your many posts.
So you say I have baggage and should move on but then ask me these questions about Newman. I actually have started another thread on this forum about JB and Newman concerning the video I posted of his lab notes I scanned for him in 2006 along with his 1984 audio interview.

https://overunity.com/18241/bedini-window-motor-came-from-newman-how-story-changed/msg535233/#msg535233

Hey, well I'll start off by saying these are very important questions. Of course there is a lot to address in all this but I'll try and be brief. First point is I think both of these guys were wrong on their theories and I am not certain myself about the fundamental nature of the physical universe and I have everything to learn. So it is hard to judge what is the proper wording to use on some subjects. That is why I try and carefully clarify things.
The coil and rotor geometry is not essentially different in either the Newman or Bedini. But as I found both of them were wrong in insisting that the coil had to wrap all the way around the motor and thus go around the shaft, when all you needed to do is have each end of the coil be in front of each opposite magnet pole (obviously it would still need to go around the entire rotor if there were only two poles). Thus the reason Bedini called it a "magnetic" "Window".

Bedini copied Newman because of Ron Cole. Cole was the one trying to improve upon Newman with semiconductor switching. With Bedini they were able to make the bipolar switching which recycled the so-called Back EMF on opposite phases. This has to be done very carefully or you will produce heat. I filmed Bedini demonstrating that many years ago with it running off an audio cap for 20 minutes. This was a very significant demonstration showing a motor with real torque running off of almost nothing and almost sustaining itself. Very practical. There is nothing else in the general public like this. So if you want a strong motor with trickle input then that is it. I produced that for some time but decided to make the battery rotating system instead.

Yes the more powerful the magnet the more torque you would get. So in this sense we are benefitting from the free energy of the magnet as there really is no drag on this motor.

As for the contact breaker switch I actually just got my first prototype Benitez interrupter setup last week, and that will be a new kit after I develop the details on that. To answer your questions however, you can read the problems Benitez mentions with contact switching of interrupters. There are various solutions, but they can get involved. There are definite advantages beyond the disadvantages of contact switching and spark gaps as they can give very fast rates of change and allow for actually open loops. But they just are not practical for my commercial interests where many customers want something that runs for years without any maintenance. I moved away from the forever-tweeking systems years ago, even though they had some advantages. For me I realized that there are always compromises we have to make in making practical free energy solutions. Cost, availability of parts, ease of assembly, stability of operation, and biological health are my key considerations which means I disregard some 85 free energy systems including solar, wind, and all the other conventional methods.
The truth is that mosfets work very well for the price. The switching speeds allow for rate of change to be acceptable to produce the effects which are needed. This effect then allows for Tesla's process along the one wire to produce unlimited output as I have mentioned and demonstrated on the basic level to everyone (and on the advanced unlimited level concealed in a box).  The losses in mosfets is minimal so why would that matter. I have found people worrying about minor losses in motors while neglecting to focus on what is important. As I said, it is not about doing only what is ideal, but what is practical under the various considerations I have mentioned. I have a lot more options when I have a micro controller. We put into our motors what we call a liberty pulse to change the impulsing slightly ever tenth of a second to avoid the cancer causing effects of repetitive frequencies. We have battery rotation programing that turns the motor off for before the rotation and then turns it back on. We have thermal control, RPM control, user power level controls and many other options with digital control of the mosfets. Good luck trying to do all that with mechanical contacts. If we needed, we could recover all the losses in the fets as well. There are a 1000 things we could do to improve things here and there. But they really don't matter when you consider what the goal is and what really matters.

No one is suggesting SCRs to do such things. If you know what a GTO (gate turn-off thyristor) is you will understand it is essentially a device where you can have the advantages of an SCR and be able to turn it off, which you really can't do with and SCR. But GTOs are also old, and now we use IGCTs (integrated gate-commutated thyristor) in the big systems where thousands of amperes and thousands of volts are switched. This we use on systems above 50kw. These devices are all made up of mosfets and transistors anyway. They are the only real option for that level of switching and do give you some decent frequency as well.

Is it Ricks channel? indeed well well news travels!
Question for nick, in the newman device Mr newman obviously had a different set up to the window JB device in that Mr Newman used a 'contact breaker switch interrupter' per revolution. Well to be exact didn't the energy he spoke of coming from his spinning magnetic pump effect and his contact breaking com/slip ring mechanism so in effect if one was to replace the ferromagnets with Neo's the effect would me some what spectacular ? If that is so why don't all your devices exploited this phenomena but use a semiconductor that incurs losses instead as the short resistance impedance would require about 10 x irf640's in parallel to acquire the correct impedance however the BEMF might pose a problem, if one did the job correctly and before some one suggests using an SCR it has a resistance in the 5 ohm region witch makes it useless along with any bipolar device  ;D

PS thanks for the advice.
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 06:40:48 PM
Any mistakes in life and technology. I am sharing many of my mistakes and those of others so that others need not fall into any traps and waste time, money, and their faith.
I always appreciate prayer, even if people think I am in the wrong. I learn from other people's criticisms as well.

What mistakes would those be then ?  :)
I will get my religious bud'y to pray for you.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 07:37:39 PM
Nick,
You didn't consider what I said in the video demonstration or on this forum. It doesn't matter what I or anyone shows because anyone could be mistaken or fake a video, picture, or testimony claim. No matter what I show in the cyberworld it should not be believed as any kind of proof. This practice of believing things for or against claims on these forums is reckless. It is fine as giving information on how people may prove these things to themselves, and that is all I ever attempt to do. All I am seeking to do is enable people to help themselves. There is a big difference. I did a sensational video demonstration WHILE MAKING THIS VERY POINT. It was sort of a test to see people's reaction. I get zero response to that video here from those wanting to disbelieve my claims, while A posts a picture and people are all supportive. This is crazy don't you think? You want a meter showing zero, but you should not believe that until you can see your own meter zero. I have given everyone a means to see my claims proven, but I only do that in the real world. I am a teacher and will not teach falsely. That is I will not promote any belief in something that should never be believed. I watch you guys do this now and it is very concerning. You guys lack real-world experience to insist upon and expect belief about claims shown through pictures and video. I work with technicians and am one myself, and as such I know that what someone says over the phone, in word, or through picture and video is often not revealing the whole picture. You have to go there to see. Soooooo

if you assume the situation is how people tell you they think it is, especially in this research, you will usually be mistaken. I have 15 years in this. I know how easily people are mistaken. We are not just dealing with fakery but simple mistakes. And everyone here wants to assume their own bias. This is not real science at all. It is rash, sloppy, and foolish to assume all these things for or against claims. In the end I have to pick up the pieces of people who have wasted so much of their time and money and have lost their faith because of indulging in these kinds of assumptions.

Now if you want to do that I have given a video demonstrating over 80 coils powering loads, while showing you how that was just a small number that could be powered. I do not do that to prove anything to anyone, but just to show you what you can show yourself. So the lack of response to that from some of you reveals that no matter what I show you in video it will not matter. Notice the first remark about my first picture post was a scoff that there must be hidden wires. So that is why I agreed to the underlying doubt of that comment and pointed these things out about the nature of proper belief and proof. Why should that scoffer believe a picture? How does he know I didn't make mistakes that were not revealed by the picture? How can he judge whether or not it was faked? He can't.
So with A's pictures posted the other day. You guys love that, and you assume many things about the picture for or against what A believes he has demonstrated. So I brought up that as an example. I explained what we don't know from what he showed and said. There are many factors that could account for what we see in the picture. Each person wants to quickly assume many things according to what they want to believe about it. Those seeking OU can run with it and those doubting it can resist it. But I am neither for or against claims. I'm a realist having been at the center of all these kinds of claims online and off-line in the real world. These are games people.

What I'm getting at is that pictures and videos are no more believable than words. Ultimately pictures and videos have little content until descriptive words are added to it. Now I have given such pictures and videos showing meters at zero, devices self-running, etc. But these are just rejected by those who choose to disbelieve such demonstrations and believed by those who are inclined to believe them. I have learned that it doesn't settle what needs to be done here. It only fosters more of the same assumptions that eliminate proper scientific discussion and development. What is needed is for people to agree to stop assuming things for and against claims and hold any claim, testimony, revelation up as merely a hypothesis to be personally confirmed. But instead we have people accepting such testimony as fact and making conclusions about the real world as if they have good reason to do that. That is reckless and is the main reason why these forums will always fail. Look, all you have to do is NOT make conclusions about anything so presented here and then it would be fine. But the fact is I constantly see people assume a picture has proven minor points as if the reader can know all the details of the conditions and environment and the legitimacy of the testimony. This leads to countless judgments prematurely for or against claims. So people are over and under believing things and therefore it is all chaos and no real benefit. What is this so hard to admit people?

And why is self-running the only thing that is important? I have demonstrated live all forms of energy outputs for people to measure with or without self-running. I power motors, generators, heaters, inverters, incandescent bulbs that heat up, etc. But you will never be satisfied unless you do it yourself anyway.

Anyway, you don't get my point. You are only considering this from one side, as if only the skeptics are to be faulted for disbelieving claims here. But doesn't it apply both ways? Is it right to believe a claim anymore to disbelieve a claim? Why are you justified in believing this Nelson you mention? You prove this point to yourself in saying "Hopefully, Nelson's devices are not faked". Well it just so happens that I deal with countless people who have believed things that were faked on these forums. And others that were just mistakes. The classic examples are when people rapidly charge up a sulfated battery that has no real capacity and think they have something special. Or someone has a voltmeter that shows the voltage going up merely because the battery is dead and it gives a false reading. So people can be mistaken and really believe they are experiencing something special, and they can also fake things. So these forums promoting such practices that assume things foster so much needless confusion and chasing after this or that claim that wastes so much time, money and faith. This is why I feel this is more than just sloppy practice but is deliberately fostered for people to fail. This is probably why I get none of these old-timers backing me up on this. It is very revealing. Yet is it is a huge change of lifestyle to be a person of integrity and control your judgment from assuming what you want. Most people have no interest in living that way. So it is a spiritual problem as well. But everyone can see that it is a fundamental science problem. Without this sound practice all this is merely entertainment as fiction is preferred over due process.

You end with "better safe than sorry" and that is my point. Be safe and suspend your judgment. Do not assume anything and you will be safe. Don't conclude as a gamble hoping that something is real. Learn to evaluate all such claims as merely a possibility. Is that so hard to do? Is this unreasonable people?

  Rick:  I feel sorry for what you are going through. But, what we really need here is more proof that adding more and more coils, (hundreds), does not affect the input. And more importantly, does not affect the total brightness in a negative way.   If there really is more output than input, then this needs to be recycled, to self run the device. Until this is shown and proven, the negative speculation will continue. No amount of words and long explanations from you will change that.
   So, please SHOW it self running itself.   Not everyone believes that every OU device that are shown HERE are faked.
   Hopefully, Nelson's devices are not faked, and do self run. Although he won't admit it. Good call, for him. Better safe than sorry.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on June 24, 2019, 07:54:05 PM
    Rick:    Thanks for the reply.    Like I said, for people like me, who is are builders, and not just a speculating armchair forum posters, we need more proof in order to do what itsu is doing now. He is one of our best replicators, and if he can't show and replicate your circuit, then most likely none of us can. Is he doing something wrong, or what? Can you provide the needed info so that he can achieve what you say is possible?   No need to post long essays, just some critical technical info, and just avoid getting into any personal issues. They only distract from what we are trying to do. I am on your side, and not trying to antagonize you or anyone else, at all.
   BTW: The only reason I mention "Nelson" and his devices, is because, he is the only one on this forum that has shown a self running device. The ONLY one...
   In any case, I'm not here to discuss fakes, I'm here to replicate, and to build a working self running device.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 24, 2019, 08:50:10 PM
But it is speculating when you assume any claims are to be believed. You don't get it Nick, you can't be shown a self-running device through the forum. Nelson did not show you or anyone a self-running device. You just assume he did, and you have no basis for that. Maybe it is real or maybe it is not. Same with everything Itsu. Why do you assume the words and pictures show you the reality? As far as I noticed when I initially looked at his postings some weeks back I found mistakes and assumptions and significant differences. But more importantly, your comments here, and those similar reveal a bigger problem. You have made him a person to evaluate a claim of another person. All this not in the real world but through cyberland. Why do you assume he is your "best replicators"? And notice your more disturbing belief: " if he can't show and replicate your circuit, then most likely none of us can." So you will conclude on a matter based upon the work of someone else who you cannot possibly be sure that their work is accurate over the internet. This is prejudice people, no matter if you start your email with the statement "without prejudice".
I have played this game before for years. Trying to troubleshoot over the internet is difficult because you need to be there.

Anyway, your expectations and practices are your own. You can't expect everyone to put themselves under that. Itsu is not actually replicating my claims. Now I have suggested what you can do apart from my kit, and that is fine. But Itsu has never attempted to replicate my kit yet. And you guys will never be able to disprove my claims through the internet. Nor will anyone else be able to prove them through the internet on the other hand.

This does not mean that I am not willing to help and give suggestions. But until your prejudice is admitted and overcome I ask, what does it really matter? In the end if someone makes a mistake or fakes something you guys will just believe what you want.

Now A has been giving some recommendations to Itsu and has also been optimistic about him succeeding. But I found several fundamental assumptions in his presentations and claims that prevent him from being able to do these experiments. And you guys are willing to dismiss something if he can't succeed in doing a certain requirement from you. Sounds like pseudoscience to me. This just confirms that those taking control of these forums are out to prevent true scientific research and to try and disprove claims while assuming the disproving claims.

Again, it would be completely different if we were all physically present. Itsu could do his work and we could all see the actual running of things and then go home and do it ourselves. You guys are just so accustomed to this fantasy internet existence that you confuse the real world with the unreal.

You expect me to come into a hostile environment and coach someone who is not even using my parts when I cannot know what he is really doing in the real world. So then I attempt to do this and what results? If you want such examples just go back to 2005-2008 on the groups and you will see that with thousands of people already. I have met many of these people and in the real world looked at their work. Guess what? It was always different than the pictures and videos shown.

Anyway, if these points were admitted and it wasn't such a hostile environment I would help people as you can see I do on YouTube and in the real world. But I am not about to fall into these traps you guys are setting with all your assumption that you are not willing to give an account for. Nor am I going to give hostile people help so that they can personally profit from things I have already told them how to do. Again, you insist upon doing one thing because you are merely looking for power meter readings. I have already given the power meter readings showing zero for years. Would that prove anything if I showed you this again?

I have a video from 4 years ago showing an hour long demonstration in front of many attendees of my Chicago meeting where my 4 pole was self-sustaining while running various loads. That is what you are expecting but what will it prove if you were not there? If Itsu did the same, what would it prove to you? If he SAID he couldn't do it what would that prove?

If you want any more help you have to agree to do real science. So far all this is science fiction fixation. You admit here that you do not care about real science but only want to conclude upon unverifiable claims. Change your prejudice method and we can actually do something constructive. But no, you just want to jump to the conclusions and limit yourself to throwing around pictures and numbers and claims. And where has it got you all these years? Nowhere! Ever assuming and hoping and wasting money and time. Well we never know what people are really doing in the real world do we?

So what do you want Nick? Science or Science fiction? Reality or Fantasy? Free Energy or Gossip? Scientists or Patsies? Hypotheses or Prejudice?

    Rick:    Thanks for the reply.    Like I said, for people like me, who is are builders, and not just a speculating armchair forum posters, we need more proof in order to do what itsu is doing now. He is one of our best replicators, and if he can't show and replicate your circuit, then most likely none of us can. Is he doing something wrong, or what? Can you provide the needed info so that he can achieve what you say is possible?   No need to post long essays, just some critical technical info, and just avoid getting into any personal issues. They only distract from what we are trying to do. I am on your side, and not trying to antagonize you or anyone else, at all.
   BTW: The only reason I mention "Nelson" and his devices, is because, he is the only one on this forum that has shown a self running device. The ONLY one...
   In any case, I'm not here to discuss fakes, I'm here to replicate, and to build a working self running device.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 24, 2019, 10:47:27 PM

Re Rick:


My comments on some of the comments.


Yes I am guilty for highlighting Rick on this and another forum - but not BEFORE I had checked him out.  I listened and watched and analysed over 50 hours of Rick's videos and spoke to him extensively on the phone  before I came to my conclusions.
Specifically he had done the Benitez experiments as I had.  I was talking about Benitez 5 or 6 years ago on these forums and the posts are still there.
I checked out Rick's information about the Bedini and derivative systems.  I will post the new information at the end.
Then I saw he had replicated much of Don Smith. I talked with him extensively about the Don Smith process and  book.  He told me repeatedly that I did not have to buy the book - all the info was already on line ( mostly).  I then realized that he knew what he was talking about - and from a practical not theoretical point of view.
I bought the book and am glad I did.  He has demystified Don Smith.
I checked Rick out on the Energetic forum and read all the vile personal criticism - but not one contradiction that was viable of an electrical nature.  I phoned Rick up extensively to double check him out.  I even found out he had a convention in Canada and rang him there.  I knew positively then that Rick was being lied about and defamed. (They claimed he was an illegal)
I checked out the products for sale on that forum:  Only books and dvds. Benfr started a forum on Rick's Resonance induction  kits on Energetic. Vitriol followed - so I posted a sarcastic comment that I would love to buy a Don Smith kit from them.  Obviously they were incapable of anything like that.  The only 2 people worth following on that forum are Peter Lindeman and Eric Dollard.
I started a thread on Overuityresearch about Rick's kit.  Vile vitriol followed. It was so bad I had to close the thread down.  It got so bad that 2 members resigned.
So here is a summary of what Rick has taught me through personal contact and his extensive videos online.
1 There are  4 types of electricity:  Dc, Ac, oscillatory and impulse.
2 Impulse technology is Tesla's technology and is the one to be considered for OU
3 The Heavyside component:  Impulse technology in the Bedini systems makes extensive use of the Heavyside component. This calls into question your battery placement and connecting wires. You can easily mess up the magnetic fields by sloppy arrangement of the components.
4 Don Smith patented this effect and called it the Don Smith effect.
5 The Bedini SG and other systems and derivatives use Tesla's impulse technology and can charge a bank of batteries from one input  (Who knew that?). (BTW I had already done this over 5 years ago)
6 Tesla's one wire system creating nodes. (Video 7).  Of course I knew about it - just never realized it's significance.
7 Resonance is a gain. 
7 b Rick's use of the gate driver without the transistor to mimic somewhat Tesla's impulse technology.
7c Using this impulse technology at Resonance (EEs vehemently disagree with this even though they know virtually noting  about impulse technology at resonance)
7d Seeing the power draw REDUCE as more loads are added. ( phase mirroring effect).
8 Don Smith:  The Kapanadze system and the Don Smith system are the same principle. Don Smith 1994 - Kapanadze 2004.  Don Smith was talking to the Russian academy of sciences - Kapanadze also (I have been told Kapanadze bribed an official of the Russian academy).
8 Back to Bedini: Solid state SSG. We all put welding rods or iron insulated garden wire in our trifilar coils. Guess what?  Doesn't work at 27 khz.  You need a ferrite core.  Nice sneaky  trick by Bedini fooling us all.
 Don Smith:
 1st process  HV HF impulse technology.
Next 1/4 wave up or down.(Resonance process)
Next pulsed DC through High speed High voltage rectifiers
Now the tricky bit which people don't get: FREQUENCY REDUCTION TO 120 HZ in the US. (60 up 60 down)
This is the most critical part  where each reduction in frequency is an increase in power.
Those who criticise this process because they are radio hams don't understand the following: Radio is AC with a superimposed signal on the carrier wave. This is Tesla impulse tech at resonance.   It is also converted to pulsed DC.  The use of the US radio league nomograph to get the frequency reduction is a Don Smith discovery that works. ( I have not tested this yet).
Kapanadze also uses frequency reduction in a different way.  He uses a 50hz 220 volts generator to superimpose the mains frequency on top of his resonant Don Smith frequency to power his loads. This is done in the grenade coil.
There is obvioulsy much more in the  detail re the different set ups in Rick's videos and and online comments.



So in conclusion I have one request:  Treat the resource of having Rick converse with us on this forum as a treasure which no-one else on the planet has . Engage your brain before typing nasty comments. Ask reasonable technical questions and get your soldering iron out and DO SOME EXPERIMENTS and contribute something instead of just taking.
I have done my bit.  I have brought you aquarium 2 and I have shown you some results of experiments.
Please  do as much as I  have tried to do and be nice to Rick.
Please.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 25, 2019, 12:14:44 AM
Rick,

You are right. It is difficult or impossible to prove anything to anyone over the internet.
Over the net we can only talk, which we do. How much of youtube FE devices are true you already pointed, video is not prove.

We can only believe and that could be painful at the end.

You mentioned importance of Tesla's one wire system. Can you point on some of your videos where you touched the subject, if you did such video.
Or can you talk more about it from your point of view?

Thanks!


Hoppy, thanks for the explanation!
And, Kapanadze impressed me as well. Still does.

Quote
I worked on Bedini tech for several years and built several electro-mechanical and fully solid state energisers. It became a cult with much time and money being expended by many in the search for free energy manifested in the battery bank by the actions of the energiser - a definitely not OU device in itself, as pointed out many times by John. So we were all looking for a free energy gain in our LA battery banks after having completed many charge / discharge cycles. Not forgetting the 'mechanical' gain by virtue of the torque available from revolving bike wheel, which John also reminded us many times was free, if of course and only if we built the energiser properly and not just the way that we wanted to build it. In the meantime, John was publishing books with riddles to the building and secrets of the various energisers and more exotic devices like the 'Window Motor'.

Confusion mounted as time went on, as battery load testing appeared to be carried out in different ways, until a load testing guideline was produced by SG forum members. I hit an apparent gain on many occassions, especially during the first few load testing cycles, until I realised why. The 'why' held the secret as to why my batteries appeared to be gaining real capacity. Interestingly, when I reached around the 8th and then subsequent cycles load testing cycles, I noticed a slow reduction in gain in the form of a flatlining data curve. What was causing this I thought to myself. Well, I know that other experimenters know why and I think Rick does but to my knowledge the answer was never openly acknowledged by those leading the cult, as it exposed the myth of free energy from LA batteries.
Towards the end of those cult years, John made an astounding admission, that all our battery 'spiking' with energisers without the use of cap pulsers, was damaging our batteries!!. I'd had enough of it by then and moved into what has become a new cult - Kapanadze free energy devices.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 25, 2019, 12:48:31 AM
Thanks A,
I'm not asking for any of that, and I don't care if people don't believe a single thing I say. All I care to see is people do science and not science fiction. Since there has been little response to wanting to engage in science then there is nothing more to say. You guys will inconsistently believe and disbelieve claims for many more years and when I need some fiction in my life I'll check back now and then. You all have what you need to be energy independent. You don't need some fictional messiah guy to prove something out for you in fantasy land. You are making things a whole lot more difficult than you need to. Just open the loop up from the death circle. Open the window and let the sun shine it. Never mind opening your browser do some science in the real world. Tap a dipole. Charge a battery with your fans. Make a buck boost into a motor at the same time. Catch a wave from out of this world!

Re Rick:


My comments on some of the comments.


Yes I am guilty for highlighting Rick on this and another forum - but not BEFORE I had checked him out.  I listened and watched and analysed over 50 hours of Rick's videos and spoke to him extensively on the phone  before I came to my conclusions.
Specifically he had done the Benitez experiments as I had.  I was talking about Benitez 5 or 6 years ago on these forums and the posts are still there.
I checked out Rick's information about the Bedini and derivative systems.  I will post the new information at the end.
Then I saw he had replicated much of Don Smith. I talked with him extensively about the Don Smith process and  book.  He told me repeatedly that I did not have to buy the book - all the info was already on line ( mostly).  I then realized that he knew what he was talking about - and from a practical not theoretical point of view.
I bought the book and am glad I did.  He has demystified Don Smith.
I checked Rick out on the Energetic forum and read all the vile personal criticism - but not one contradiction that was viable of an electrical nature.  I phoned Rick up extensively to double check him out.  I even found out he had a convention in Canada and rang him there.  I knew positively then that Rick was being lied about and defamed. (They claimed he was an illegal)
I checked out the products for sale on that forum:  Only books and dvds. Benfr started a forum on Rick's Resonance induction  kits on Energetic. Vitriol followed - so I posted a sarcastic comment that I would love to buy a Don Smith kit from them.  Obviously they were incapable of anything like that.  The only 2 people worth following on that forum are Peter Lindeman and Eric Dollard.
I started a thread on Overuityresearch about Rick's kit.  Vile vitriol followed. It was so bad I had to close the thread down.  It got so bad that 2 members resigned.
So here is a summary of what Rick has taught me through personal contact and his extensive videos online.
1 There are  4 types of electricity:  Dc, Ac, oscillatory and impulse.
2 Impulse technology is Tesla's technology and is the one to be considered for OU
3 The Heavyside component:  Impulse technology in the Bedini systems makes extensive use of the Heavyside component. This calls into question your battery placement and connecting wires. You can easily mess up the magnetic fields by sloppy arrangement of the components.
4 Don Smith patented this effect and called it the Don Smith effect.
5 The Bedini SG and other systems and derivatives use Tesla's impulse technology and can charge a bank of batteries from one input  (Who knew that?). (BTW I had already done this over 5 years ago)
6 Tesla's one wire system creating nodes. (Video 7).  Of course I knew about it - just never realized it's significance.
7 Resonance is a gain. 
7 b Rick's use of the gate driver without the transistor to mimic somewhat Tesla's impulse technology.
7c Using this impulse technology at Resonance (EEs vehemently disagree with this even though they know virtually noting  about impulse technology at resonance)
7d Seeing the power draw REDUCE as more loads are added. ( phase mirroring effect).
8 Don Smith:  The Kapanadze system and the Don Smith system are the same principle. Don Smith 1994 - Kapanadze 2004.  Don Smith was talking to the Russian academy of sciences - Kapanadze also (I have been told Kapanadze bribed an official of the Russian academy).
8 Back to Bedini: Solid state SSG. We all put welding rods or iron insulated garden wire in our trifilar coils. Guess what?  Doesn't work at 27 khz.  You need a ferrite core.  Nice sneaky  trick by Bedini fooling us all.
 Don Smith:
 1st process  HV HF impulse technology.
Next 1/4 wave up or down.(Resonance process)
Next pulsed DC through High speed High voltage rectifiers
Now the tricky bit which people don't get: FREQUENCY REDUCTION TO 120 HZ in the US. (60 up 60 down)
This is the most critical part  where each reduction in frequency is an increase in power.
Those who criticise this process because they are radio hams don't understand the following: Radio is AC with a superimposed signal on the carrier wave. This is Tesla impulse tech at resonance.   It is also converted to pulsed DC.  The use of the US radio league nomograph to get the frequency reduction is a Don Smith discovery that works. ( I have not tested this yet).
Kapanadze also uses frequency reduction in a different way.  He uses a 50hz 220 volts generator to superimpose the mains frequency on top of his resonant Don Smith frequency to power his loads. This is done in the grenade coil.
There is obvioulsy much more in the  detail re the different set ups in Rick's videos and and online comments.



So in conclusion I have one request:  Treat the resource of having Rick converse with us on this forum as a treasure which no-one else on the planet has . Engage your brain before typing nasty comments. Ask reasonable technical questions and get your soldering iron out and DO SOME EXPERIMENTS and contribute something instead of just taking.
I have done my bit.  I have brought you aquarium 2 and I have shown you some results of experiments.
Please  do as much as I  have tried to do and be nice to Rick.
Please.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on June 25, 2019, 12:53:47 AM
I would like to give some informations for all the people here, that really wants to find something that gives you a direction to OU.
I am only a simple replicator of Ricks Informations, with bad english skills and small knowledge about electricity, but after I followed his Informations I had first positive results.
Please guys. Read Ricks comments line by line. I have do that with every word here and every sentence in his videos. I made about 80 pages of notes for myself. Struggled with all the english words that I heard, but couldn't find in the translater and also give up many times, because I had to watch all the videos 3 to 4 times.
I don't want to convince you. But when it is possible for me, you will also be able to do it. Come on guys, it is not so hard. Only what you need is a little bit of time an trust and you will be pretty successful. And DON'T GIVE UP!
My first result was the replication of what he has shown with this many coils. With every coil I put into the system the total power consuption goes down and down and down, but in the same time I have more new outputs for FREE!
You don't need the resonance kit to do that, but for me it was the key.
Yes I have many questions because of lack of knowledge. For sample, the correct gounding, impedance monograph etc. (next Steps to working Don Smith device) but I know, everything is in one of the books or he had sayed it in one of the videos.   
So, I am very happy. Thank you very very much Rick!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 25, 2019, 01:23:49 AM
Any mistakes in life and technology. I am sharing many of my mistakes and those of others so that others need not fall into any traps and waste time, money, and their faith.
I always appreciate prayer, even if people think I am in the wrong. I learn from other people's criticisms as well.
Rich, thanks for the reply  :) i can see whats wrong my old device (newman motor). It will need some work doing on it for sure.


regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 25, 2019, 01:30:43 AM
Re Rick:

Next pulsed DC through High speed High voltage rectifiers
Now the tricky bit which people don't get: FREQUENCY REDUCTION TO 120 HZ in the US. (60 up 60 down)
This is the most critical part  where each reduction in frequency is an increase in power.
Those who criticise this process because they are radio hams don't understand the following: Radio is AC with a superimposed signal on the carrier wave. This is Tesla impulse tech at resonance.   It is also converted to pulsed DC.  The use of the US radio league nomograph to get the frequency reduction is a Don Smith discovery that works. ( I have not tested this yet).
Kapanadze also uses frequency reduction in a different way.  He uses a 50hz 220 volts generator to superimpose the mains frequency on top of his resonant Don Smith frequency to power his loads. This is done in the grenade coil.
There is obvioulsy much more in the  detail re the different set ups in Rick's videos and and online comments.
Hi have you got any info on this 60/up 60/down thing please ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 25, 2019, 01:42:52 AM
Wow, finally! I know it is difficult for people to admit that but I am just trying to save everyone that pain.
Hey, talking is fine and necessary and fun. Throwing ideas is great and needed. We just have to avoid bar talk from becoming beliefs. We just can't have "more of the same".
There are too many videos for me to single out. What I did initially was print out everything that's available on Tesla and spread it out throughout my whole house while I was doing my book. I also had to transcribe some lectures so that I was also able to search everything for key words. I searched for "one wire" and related words. But this was only after I read everything very carefully so I got the broad context as well as the specific context. I have put many of those quotes in my kit book in the advanced section. So you don't need the book. Just read carefully over those first three lectures carefully. You may get bored at times and think the lengthy focus on bulbs is pointless, but there will be important things here and there. Remember that Tesla said later that he wanted to share more about Resonance but the attitudes prevented him from opening up. So that means there are only hints here and there. More than hints, all the important stuff is there if you have an eye for details and realize sometimes he only said something once. This is especially true in his patents. Of course the 1916 lawyer document is very important but you will find what you need in the first three lectures from 1891-1893. Notice all the one wire circuits (there are others in other places as well). Notice the position of the grounding(s), and these are air groundings indicated by the letter P. Notices especially and start here:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1893-02-24.htm#impedance_phenomema

"Very high frequencies are of course not practicable with motors on account of the necessity of employing iron cores.  But one may use sudden discharges of low frequency and thus obtain certain advantages of high-frequency currents without rendering the iron core entirely incapable of following the changes and without entailing a very great expenditure of energy in the core.  I have found it quite practicable to operate with such low frequency disruptive discharges of condensers, alternating-current motors.  A certain class of such motors which I advanced a few years ago, which contain closed secondary circuits, will rotate quite vigorously when the discharges are directed through the exciting coils.  One reason that such a motor operates so well with these discharges is that the difference of phase between the primary and secondary currents is 90 degrees, which is generally not the case with harmonically rising and falling currents of low frequency.  It might not be without interest to show an experiment with a simple motor of this kind, inasmuch as it is commonly thought that disruptive discharges are unsuitable for such purposes.  ….  By observing certain elementary rules I have also found it practicable to operate ordinary series or shunt direct-current motors with such disruptive discharges, and this can be done with or without a return wire.
 
IMPEDANCE PHENOMENA
"Among the various current phenomena observed, perhaps the most interesting are those of impedance presented by conductors to currents varying at a rapid rate.  In my first paper before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, I have described a few striking observations of this kind.  Thus I showed that when such currents or sudden discharges are passed through a thick metal bar there may be points on the bar only a few inches apart, which have a sufficient potential difference between them to maintain at bright incandescence an ordinary filament lamp.  I have also described the curious behavior of rarefied gas surrounding a conductor, due to such sudden rushes of current.  These phenomena have since been more carefully studied and one or two novel experiments of this kind are deemed of sufficient interest to be described here.
[See what is wrongly called Tesla Hairpin Circuit]
"Referring to Fig. 19a/183a, B and B1 are very stout copper bars connected at their lower ends to plates C and C1, respectively, of a condenser, the opposite plates of the latter being connected to the terminals of the secondary S of a high-tension transformer, the primary P of which is supplied with alternating currents from an ordinary low-frequency dynamo G or distribution circuit.  The condenser discharges through an adjustable gap d d as usual.  By establishing a rapid vibration it was found quite easy to perform the following curious experiment.  The bars B and B1 were joined at the top by a low-voltage lamp l3 a little lower was placed by means of clamps C C, a 50-volt lamp l2; and still lower another 100-volt lamp l1; and finally, at a certain distance below the latter lamp, an exhausted tube T. By carefully determining the positions of these devices it was found practicable to maintain them all at their proper illuminating power.  Yet they were all connected in multiple arc to the two stout copper bars and required widely different pressures.  This experiment requires of course some time for adjustment but is quite easily performed.
In Figs. 19b/183b and 19c/183c, two other experiments are illustrated which, unlike the previous experiment, do not require very careful adjustments.  In Fig. 19b/183b, two lamps, l1 and l2, the former a 100-volt and the latter a 50-volt are placed in certain positions as indicated, the 100-volt lamp being below the 50-volt lamp.  When the arc is playing at d d and the sudden discharges are passed through the bars B B1, the 50-volt lamp will, as a rule, burn brightly, or at least this result is easily secured, while the 100-volt lamp will burn very low or remain quite dark, Fig. 19b/183b.  Now the bars B B1 may be joined at the top by a thick cross bar B2 and it is quite easy to maintain the 100-volt lamp at full candle-power while the 50-volt lamp remains dark, Fig. 19c/183c.  These results, as I have pointed out previously, should not be considered to be due exactly to frequency but rather to the time rate of change which may be great, even with low frequencies.  A great many other results of the same kind, equally interesting, especially to those who are only used to manipulate steady currents, may be obtained and they afford precious clues in investigating the nature of electric currents.
"In the preceding experiments I have already had occasion to show some light phenomena and it would now be proper to study these in particular; but to make this investigation more complete I think it necessary to make first a few remarks on the subject of electrical resonance which has to be always observed in carrying out these experiments."
END TESLA QUOTE

The rest you'll just have to read in this context. You have to take away the point that the effect does not happen without the beneficial process, and therefore it is not a matter of volts and amps. Impulse is not DC, and these effects will not happen with regular processes of both impulsing and resonance. Out of resonance you will have some benefit with impulsing, as we show with the motor and the basic third stage process demonstrations. But with resonance and proper impedance matching you can multiply it out as you wish. And you can see more than fifty different Tesla one wire loaded circuits throughout his writings to show you your options. You can power any loads, resistive or reactive. It is only here and there where find with any of these big names that you can multiply out these processes as much as you want. It is always implied in the teaching if you study carefully. Even with Bedini I am not aware of anyone else having noticed what he said in that respect in DVD7 but my one student who ended up making the black box that did just that. Tesla made few remarks along those lines for his own reasons. Ultimately he was interested in selling power systems and trying to progress human evolution rather than trying to teach the individual how to have energy independence. It will take a good month to properly learn Tesla on these points because we have to unlearn while we expand/open our minds.

Rick,

You are right. It is difficult or impossible to prove anything to anyone over the internet.
Over the net we can only talk, which we do. How much of youtube FE devices are true you already pointed, video is not prove.

We can only believe and that could be painful at the end.

You mentioned importance of Tesla's one wire system. Can you point on some of your videos where you touched the subject, if you did such video.
Or can you talk more about it from your point of view?

Thanks!


Hoppy, thanks for the explanation!
And, Kapanadze impressed me as well. Still does.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 25, 2019, 01:53:57 AM
Very good. Newmans coils are to be in resonance as well.

Rich, thanks for the reply  :) i can see whats wrong my old device (newman motor). It will need some work doing on it for sure.
regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 25, 2019, 02:15:18 AM
A sine wave.
As for people having a hard time doing the frequency conversion just study how the rectenna's do it as they are working in the GHz converting down to DC or in some cases 50 or 60Hz. This is whole other teaching, but since it is not directly OU it is just conventional knowledge. So everything from the L2 onward is found in the rectenna technology. And some of the L1/L2 relationships as well. In fact, at my last meeting I showed everyone how I could take three off the self products and put them together to have full Don Smith high output system that was self-tuning. Not a big deal once you get the main foundational points I have been stressing...

Hi have you got any info on this 60/up 60/down thing please ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 25, 2019, 09:53:23 AM
Hi Rick,


You said nobody valued the info you are sharing, that is not true at all, in my case at least. I merely pointed out that fact that when the coil discharges, after the radiant event we still find a bit of current also, even though I totally agree on the fact that without the neg impulses we're tied to finding classic results only and won't find OU. But you misunderstood and overreacted and things went south. 
I totally agree that nothing can be demonstrated or proven on the net. Info can be shared and then everyone who replicates on the bench can only prove it to himself and who's physically around.
Just so you know why I'm here, my goal is to be able to have a solar system with no solar panels ;) , where I'm either rotating 2 battery banks to run an inverter (or one bank that doesn't run down while powering the inverter.) While I understand your point about making the coil a motor, although I have done that, at the moment I'm interested in a solid state energizer with added one wire loads, that charge caps for battery pulse charging. I have been trying that years ago when dvd 7 came out, but back then I din't understand Tesla the way I do now (I know you don't think I do lol...) even though I still have a lot to read and learn. But the principle about fast and sharp impulses to trigger another type of inrushing energy is perfectly clear in my mind and is what I have been working on for quite some time. I built SG's more than 10 years ago and then moved to solid state, then after JB's riddles I got frustrated and moved to other projects such as delayed lenz generators, SERPS and other stuff, spending a lot of time and money. But I always knew there had to be a way to make the solid state SG do want I want it to do, that's why I jumped aboard when I saw your posts about dvd7 and the one wire, as I need direction from someone with the correct info. That's why I'm actually grateful for you being here and sharing, like someone else wrote, I'm on your side too... and ready to learn.


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 25, 2019, 11:48:00 AM
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. I totally understand your frustration with Bedini's riddles and games. That was part of his disinformation.
And I understand, yes there is no need to use either motors or batteries. They are just easy to use for beginners to see different types of gains. I have pretty much exhausted my research in them and don't need them anymore. But motors and batteries seem to be the line that is allowed, so that is all we can sell without trouble. They are enough for everyone to have all their needs supplied like solar and wind (without their limitations and ruining the batteries). Then people can add this third stage process and multiply the energy out as much as they want as you will see in the next post of the movie I just uploaded...

Hi Rick,
You said nobody valued the info you are sharing, that is not true at all, in my case at least. I merely pointed out that fact that when the coil discharges, after the radiant event we still find a bit of current also, even though I totally agree on the fact that without the neg impulses we're tied to finding classic results only and won't find OU. But you misunderstood and overreacted and things went south. 
I totally agree that nothing can be demonstrated or proven on the net. Info can be shared and then everyone who replicates on the bench can only prove it to himself and who's physically around.
Just so you know why I'm here, my goal is to be able to have a solar system with no solar panels ;) , where I'm either rotating 2 battery banks to run an inverter (or one bank that doesn't run down while powering the inverter.) While I understand your point about making the coil a motor, although I have done that, at the moment I'm interested in a solid state energizer with added one wire loads, that charge caps for battery pulse charging. I have been trying that years ago when dvd 7 came out, but back then I din't understand Tesla the way I do now (I know you don't think I do lol...) even though I still have a lot to read and learn. But the principle about fast and sharp impulses to trigger another type of inrushing energy is perfectly clear in my mind and is what I have been working on for quite some time. I built SG's more than 10 years ago and then moved to solid state, then after JB's riddles I got frustrated and moved to other projects such as delayed lenz generators, SERPS and other stuff, spending a lot of time and money. But I always knew there had to be a way to make the solid state SG do want I want it to do, that's why I jumped aboard when I saw your posts about dvd7 and the one wire, as I need direction from someone with the correct info. That's why I'm actually grateful for you being here and sharing, like someone else wrote, I'm on your side too... and ready to learn.


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 25, 2019, 12:17:02 PM
I decided to finally upload the video I mentioned yesterday that demonstrated what I've called the third stage process in the Loving Paths teaching. This is an example of DVD7. This is an example of technology and research not on internet forums (because they are useless). The same is true for Don Smith type systems all around the world.

https://youtu.be/6he58A5xTIQ`

The Zero AC or DC Voltage and Amperage (with reg volt meters)
Black Box Negative Resistance Resonance Transducer.
At The Renaissance Charge, LLC. Hollywood Florida Convention.
March 22, 2015

"It's not what is in the box but what is around the box!"

http://potentialtec.com/Box.jpg (shows first German demo) Notice wave.

This was one of my students from Germany who was one of the only ones to get what John Bedini and I were showing back in 2006 in DVD7. This is what I have been showing since 2005 in different ways, and in a basic way in many demonstrations with basic inductors and transformers. But this is the fully tuned impedance matching resonance model that can be multiplied out as much as possible. The rpm had to be just right to have the right frequency for it to be in resonance. I also had to start with the charging battery discharged below 11.8V and fully converted to a negative charge. 12V 12AH positively charged input battery started off charged and did not discharge for the full hour while over 100W loads were applied. I have shown since then my motors running at some meetings for two days like this even with the basic non resonant examples. But in this case you could multiply the output as many times as you want. However, the coils on the motor were all perfect and you cannot be out a centimeter when matching impedances.

This special video is the first time this was demonstrated in the US. We demonstrated this first in Hamburg Germany and England in 2014 as you see in the above picture link.

It is not easy to hear every word shared because people were talking, and because his English was limited. I do not agree with everything he teaches or necessarily with the words "zero point," "quantum," etc.

I have given everything you need to figure this out. I will only demonstrate in open box teaching the basic level of this technology as the specific parts and relationships are proprietary. If you pay attention to detail in what I have shared about Tesla then you can figure all this out easy enough.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 25, 2019, 03:14:20 PM
Hi Rick,


thanks for sharing this video, very interesting. There is something I'm trying to figure out. Let's say that out of the receivers in fig.5 or fig. 12 of the true wireless I choose a coil. In Tesla's example the coil is placed across the one wire transmission line (in parallel), without interrupting the one wire, which in my opinion means that the frequency has to be very high in order to get a node across these two connection points of the wire. Now, in dvd7 the inductor is inserted into the one wire, not in parallel, but in series, and the reason for that I suppose is to "slow down" or allow for a lower frequency to produce a node across the coil with the correct rate. So, in a sense in this case the coil is not the actual receiving device but replaces a piece of wire to allow for lower frequencies. The receiving device then would be the FWBR and cap. Am I seeing this correctly?


thanks,
Mario

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on June 25, 2019, 04:53:23 PM
    Guys:
   I looked at that last video posted by Rick. Sorry but, that noisy thing lighting up a couple of little led bulbs, was not impressive, as it was offensively loud, instead.  I remember why I could never could fully view any of his posted videos before.
   I would not want something like that running in my house. I hope that he can show something better, and quiet.
Otherwise, solar panels would blow something like that away. Without any noise, easier to set up, and probably cheaper per watt output than what they are showing there. Sorry but I could not handle the noise, nor could view the whole video.

   Rick: We are not all idiots here. We already know about what we should or should not trust, in video or forum discussions, and don't really need you reminding us of the obvious. Even though you think that we do need your guidance on that, we don't.
  Then afterwards, you show us more videos to look at. But, say that the real deal will not be shown, as it's a secret, and proprietary.   Ok, I get it now...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on June 25, 2019, 06:25:56 PM
Hi NickZ,
Rick has shown what is in the box. Look at Loving Path Series (Zero Voltage Process).
It is to noisy..haha.. Where is a problem, to build a small box that dampen it. You can also do it with one Wire. All Informations about how to do you can find in this discussion.
What is the next problem? It is to big? it looks like not supercool? I can not believe it.

    Guys:
   I looked at that last video posted by Rick. Sorry but, that noisy thing lighting up a couple of little led bulbs, was not impressive, as it was offensively loud, instead.  I remember why I could never could fully view any of his posted videos before.
   I would not want something like that running in my house. I hope that he can show something better, and quite.
Otherwise, solar panels would blow something like that away. Without any noise, easier to set up, and probably cheaper per watt output than what they are showing there. Sorry but I could not handle the noise, nor could view the whole video.

   Rick: We are not all idiots here. We already know about what we should or should not trust, in video or forum discussions, and don't really need you reminding up of the obvious. Even though you think that we do need your guidance on that, we don't.
  Then afterwards, you show us more videos to look at. But, say that the real deal will not be shown, as it's a secret, and proprietary.   Ok, I get it now...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on June 25, 2019, 09:01:18 PM
     Sorry, but that's it for me on this thread.     I don't need all the BS.    NickZ,  over and out
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 25, 2019, 10:58:53 PM
There is something I have been thinking about for several days now I just still don't understand.  Some comments have been made that have said the voltage across the input coil keeps going up when more secondary coils are added.  And Rick has confirmed this.  Also comments have been made that the input current keeps going down as more secondary coils are added.  And the claim has been made that the power keeps going down as secondary coils are added.  But if the voltage is going up while the current is going down that does NOT mean the power is going down when secondary coils are added.  That only means the circuit is becoming more inductive which is increasing the inductive reactance.

The other question or puzzle for me is how is the voltage across the primary coil going up?  The only schematic I have seen in this thread is the one posted by Itsu.  And if i recall correctly the primary was being fed by a power supply so the voltage to the coil would be fixed and thus not able to go up.  So something just doesn't add up there.

And the last thing that is puzzling me is what is meant by the term "Gate Driver".  I keep hearing that term used in the videos and by others as if it is some secret circuit that is making all this magic possible.  I know what a gate driver is in real electronics.  It is just a simple chip with a circuit built into it that supplies the proper signal to drive either a mosfet or IGBT.  I have used them for years.  But what is the "gate driver" referred to in this thread?

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 25, 2019, 11:56:54 PM
Should be fun to see if somebody will ansver to citftas  questions. Adding my two previous questions also;
How is it possibe to  lit the LEDs  with the coils coupled in two absolutely different directions/ situations pic1, pic2, but they are all shining fine in both cases.

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on June 26, 2019, 12:02:20 AM
There is something I have been thinking about for several days now I just still don't understand.  Some comments have been made that have said the voltage across the input coil keeps going up when more secondary coils are added.  And Rick has confirmed this.  Also comments have been made that the input current keeps going down as more secondary coils are added.  And the claim has been made that the power keeps going down as secondary coils are added.  But if the voltage is going up while the current is going down that does NOT mean the power is going down when secondary coils are added.  That only means the circuit is becoming more inductive which is increasing the inductive reactance.


Respectfully,
Carroll
Yes, agreed.

Another thought provoking thing is Rick's motor / charger video. My experiences using this type of setup, both solid state and electro-mechanical, was that initially and for fairly long periods of time, some 'exciting' rising voltage readings resulted, both on charge and source batteries. However, at a certain point in the run, a fairly quick primary terminal voltage fall and a stabilising charging voltage would commence. I deduced that this effect was most likely due to the effects of de-sulfation. This effect was most noticeable on brand new LA batteries (both SLAB's and wet cell) and batteries that had been sitting unused for a considerable time. Perhaps Rick could comment on this. The length of the video demonstration would in my opinion from experience, be quite suitable to demonstrate the 'exciting' effects, without necessarily seeing the downturn.It should also be appreciated that 'Peukerts Law' also operates in reverse, that is with battery loads considerably lower than the C20 rate.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on June 26, 2019, 01:00:54 AM
Hi Citfta,
yes I wrote that my total power keeps going down. Sorry for confusion. I haven't discribe my setup. My power supply drives Ricks Kit (a small frequency generator with a gatedriver that drives the primary coil).
Lets say I have 12V with 60mA to drive the primary coil. When I add more (secondary) coils, the amperage on the power supply goes down with every new coil in the system. In my case, the 12V stays the same, because of the power supply. 
That is what I meaned. My total power consumption goes down, but with new scondary coils I can drive more and more loads at the same time.
That does not mean, that the primary coil voltage can not go up in the same time.
Mosfet driver has to reasons in my opinion:
1. it amplifys the signal, from the frequency generator.
2. Important: sharpen the rise- an falltime of the signal, wich gives you a additional gain.

I am only a newbie that plays with Ricks Kit. I think he can give you a much better feedback, then me.
There is something I have been thinking about for several days now I just still don't understand.  Some comments have been made that have said the voltage across the input coil keeps going up when more secondary coils are added.  And Rick has confirmed this.  Also comments have been made that the input current keeps going down as more secondary coils are added.  And the claim has been made that the power keeps going down as secondary coils are added.  But if the voltage is going up while the current is going down that does NOT mean the power is going down when secondary coils are added.  That only means the circuit is becoming more inductive which is increasing the inductive reactance.

The other question or puzzle for me is how is the voltage across the primary coil going up?  The only schematic I have seen in this thread is the one posted by Itsu.  And if i recall correctly the primary was being fed by a power supply so the voltage to the coil would be fixed and thus not able to go up.  So something just doesn't add up there.

And the last thing that is puzzling me is what is meant by the term "Gate Driver".  I keep hearing that term used in the videos and by others as if it is some secret circuit that is making all this magic possible.  I know what a gate driver is in real electronics.  It is just a simple chip with a circuit built into it that supplies the proper signal to drive either a mosfet or IGBT.  I have used them for years.  But what is the "gate driver" referred to in this thread?

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: endlessoceans on June 26, 2019, 01:28:14 AM

At The Renaissance Charge, LLC. Hollywood Florida Convention.
March 22, 2015

"It's not what is in the box but what is around the box!"

http://potentialtec.com/Box.jpg (shows first German demo) Notice wave.



This special video is the first time this was demonstrated in the US. We demonstrated this first in Hamburg Germany and England in 2014 as you see in the above picture link.

It is not easy to hear every word shared because people were talking, and because his English was limited. I do not agree with everything he teaches or necessarily with the words "zero point," "quantum," etc.




Convention?  There were about 20 ragtag retirees at that thing none of whom had a technical clue about what is going on.  All amazed and talking silliness about "not normal electricity".  What was the point of dropping the LED in the glass of water and in the end it did not light anyway hahaha

Whats going on around the box??   I know exactly what you mean so when I say in light hearted fashion that the biggest thing going on around that box is two whopping batteries (THAT ARE STILL DECREASING IN VOLTAGE) AND SOME VERY DIMLY LIT bogus load LEDS, don't think I do not know what you mean.  There are several hairpin type Tesla setups that can excite the environment and do what you demonstrate.   PLEASE!!!.....that Indian looking pot belly guy was an embarrassment talking nonsense.


STOP implying OU when there is none.  YES you can keep adding loads on these type circuits and in SOME cases the main driver will decrease in consumption.  YES you have to match impedances and you cannot over work the circuit with infinite output.  However, Rick you still talk too much and post lengthy winded nonsense. 


The only people buying your garbage that flows from your mouth are the uneducated.


A couple brave retirees in that video kept pointing out that the battery voltages were falling.    There is no OU in THAT system.  Anyone with skills and versed in the art can brightly light LEDS and replicate but how bout you just put as many coils as you want around the main driver, RECTIFY properly and then charge a battery/s.  What you are doing there is not even 90% efficient.

Your kit with those miniscule red leds…...put a real load on it
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: endlessoceans on June 26, 2019, 01:30:21 AM
     Sorry, but that's it for me on this thread.     I don't need all the BS.    NickZ,  over and out

My thoughts exactly.  Its an advertisement thread for kits anyway
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 26, 2019, 01:31:57 AM
There is something I have been thinking about for several days now I just still don't understand.  Some comments have been made that have said the voltage across the input coil keeps going up when more secondary coils are added.  And Rick has confirmed this.  Also comments have been made that the input current keeps going down as more secondary coils are added.  And the claim has been made that the power keeps going down as secondary coils are added.  But if the voltage is going up while the current is going down that does NOT mean the power is going down when secondary coils are added.  That only means the circuit is becoming more inductive which is increasing the inductive reactance.

The other question or puzzle for me is how is the voltage across the primary coil going up?  The only schematic I have seen in this thread is the one posted by Itsu.  And if i recall correctly the primary was being fed by a power supply so the voltage to the coil would be fixed and thus not able to go up.  So something just doesn't add up there.

And the last thing that is puzzling me is what is meant by the term "Gate Driver".  I keep hearing that term used in the videos and by others as if it is some secret circuit that is making all this magic possible.  I know what a gate driver is in real electronics.  It is just a simple chip with a circuit built into it that supplies the proper signal to drive either a mosfet or IGBT.  I have used them for years.  But what is the "gate driver" referred to in this thread?

Respectfully,
Carroll


Gate driver:  We are using the gate driver with no transistor!!!  It is being used to directly drive the Tx coil in series. It therefore gives a sharper impulse than the square wave frequency generator on it's own plus it acts as an amplifier.
Voltages in this set up go crazy when you get a magnetic lock.  The input power can go right down as you add more loads because  each coil is creating its own magnetic field.
 The higher the input voltage to the gate driver  the greater the magnetic fields.  That is the whole point here. As you move the coils about sometimes one coil goes "out" and acts as an amplifier to a coil further afield.
It does not conform to Kirchhoff's laws. It is not a closed loop system.
Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 03:26:28 AM
Mario,
No. Reread my quote from Tesla yesterday on Impedance where the so-called hairpin circuit is talked about.
"These results, as I have pointed out previously, should not be considered to be due exactly to frequency but rather to the time rate of change which may be great, even with low frequencies."
Now you can see why I have been jumping up and down about this. This is a whole different kind of energy. This is not pulsed dc, because it is not DC.

There are many options here, but the results will not be what you think. This is something you just have to experience. The problem with merely thinking about it is that you think only in terms of current flow as AC or DC and this is not either.
Yes the parallel is different but it is essentially belonging to the same family of ideas. There are minor differences in these various arrangements.
No comments yet about the transverse arrangement, which is probably the most perplexing to people and most significant as it allows endless networks to be created...

Hi Rick,
thanks for sharing this video, very interesting. There is something I'm trying to figure out. Let's say that out of the receivers in fig.5 or fig. 12 of the true wireless I choose a coil. In Tesla's example the coil is placed across the one wire transmission line (in parallel), without interrupting the one wire, which in my opinion means that the frequency has to be very high in order to get a node across these two connection points of the wire. Now, in dvd7 the inductor is inserted into the one wire, not in parallel, but in series, and the reason for that I suppose is to "slow down" or allow for a lower frequency to produce a node across the coil with the correct rate. So, in a sense in this case the coil is not the actual receiving device but replaces a piece of wire to allow for lower frequencies. The receiving device then would be the FWBR and cap. Am I seeing this correctly?


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 03:37:32 AM
Wow Nick you are something else. This was a private video that I made available to you guys. What you say is very revealing of who you really are here. Man, this was a very significant demonstration to these people. You have a motor running for one hour with 200W LED loads running at times and the input battery never changed!!! And you call that a couple of insignificant bulbs. Yes you never watched the video I can see as you just gave up watching as you revealed. Now who is the fool here??? For those who want to understand this process this is the most important video on YouTube. You have never seen the real deal. That setup actually ran all his shop lights all the time and the battery always stays the same. You are a real piece of work Nick. You guys make a big deal about believing claims for or against something which I said cannot prove anything. So I show you guys something that you want and so you just insult me. Obviously you are some distractor here to turn people away from significant things. I have explained many supporting reasons for this process and you just ignore it because you don't like me and/or don't want people to find these truths. It is interesting how vicious people get when you show something so important. And I really don't care if you are offended because the specific details were not revealed. I have already pointed you to Tesla on the variety of ways you can do these things. Don't be lazy man, take the time to learn about resonance and impendence matching and figure these things out yourself. I already have given everyone the basic way of doing this without tuning which gives much multiplied output. Grow up man.


    Guys:
   I looked at that last video posted by Rick. Sorry but, that noisy thing lighting up a couple of little led bulbs, was not impressive, as it was offensively loud, instead.  I remember why I could never could fully view any of his posted videos before.
   I would not want something like that running in my house. I hope that he can show something better, and quiet.
Otherwise, solar panels would blow something like that away. Without any noise, easier to set up, and probably cheaper per watt output than what they are showing there. Sorry but I could not handle the noise, nor could view the whole video.

   Rick: We are not all idiots here. We already know about what we should or should not trust, in video or forum discussions, and don't really need you reminding us of the obvious. Even though you think that we do need your guidance on that, we don't.
  Then afterwards, you show us more videos to look at. But, say that the real deal will not be shown, as it's a secret, and proprietary.   Ok, I get it now...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 03:43:34 AM
This was just showing what could be done with the motor. It doesn't need to be a motor.
Anyway, as I said, this was used to power all his lights in his shop while the battery did not discharge. It is a small setup for producing over 1000W of continuous running while self-running. This is what all of you have been demanding for years. Now I have unlocked this mystery and what do I get. Insults from Nick. Shows who he really is. He doesn't want anyone to know how to do this. This is a desperate attempt to get people to disbelieve anything to do with me. So what are you here for Nick?

Hi NickZ,
Rick has shown what is in the box. Look at Loving Path Series (Zero Voltage Process).
It is to noisy..haha.. Where is a problem, to build a small box that dampen it. You can also do it with one Wire. All Informations about how to do you can find in this discussion.
What is the next problem? It is to big? it looks like not supercool? I can not believe it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 03:55:14 AM
Carrol that would be more than puzzling indeed. I remember correcting someone on that. So unless I wrote directly opposite then I don't know why you think I confirmed that.
Let's be clear here:
1. The input voltage stays the same on my power supply.
2. The amperage goes down when we load it down most of the time. It can go up under certain circumstances as well.
3. I don't recall saying the coil voltage goes up with added coils, but it can (WHILE THE INPUT VOLTAGE STAYS THE SAME) if you are in a phase mirroring situation and so the coil is also a receiver.
4. Itsu is doing something else, not my setups.
5. Yes, gate driver means just that. It is not driving a gate however, but merely switching directly. It is 12A so it is capable. But the significance is that it creates a fast rate of change. We see the circulating voltage go from 250V without it to 1300V in the kit. The Impulse energy is what we are focusing on besides the oscillating energy gains from resonance. Both are amplifying energy process. Obviously yet to be proved to most people here who haven't yet experimented and are looking to others to confirm such things for them.

There is something I have been thinking about for several days now I just still don't understand.  Some comments have been made that have said the voltage across the input coil keeps going up when more secondary coils are added.  And Rick has confirmed this.  Also comments have been made that the input current keeps going down as more secondary coils are added.  And the claim has been made that the power keeps going down as secondary coils are added.  But if the voltage is going up while the current is going down that does NOT mean the power is going down when secondary coils are added.  That only means the circuit is becoming more inductive which is increasing the inductive reactance.

The other question or puzzle for me is how is the voltage across the primary coil going up?  The only schematic I have seen in this thread is the one posted by Itsu.  And if i recall correctly the primary was being fed by a power supply so the voltage to the coil would be fixed and thus not able to go up.  So something just doesn't add up there.

And the last thing that is puzzling me is what is meant by the term "Gate Driver".  I keep hearing that term used in the videos and by others as if it is some secret circuit that is making all this magic possible.  I know what a gate driver is in real electronics.  It is just a simple chip with a circuit built into it that supplies the proper signal to drive either a mosfet or IGBT.  I have used them for years.  But what is the "gate driver" referred to in this thread?

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 03:59:02 AM
This is not a disputed point. The radiation goes out and covers about 70% of the area around the coil. This is a common thing which you can see in tuning coils. Again, you just have to play around with the coils and see for yourself. That is one reason for the kit  ;)

Should be fun to see if somebody will ansver to citftas  questions. Adding my two previous questions also;
How is it possibe to  lit the LEDs  with the coils coupled in two absolutely different directions/ situations pic1, pic2, but they are all shining fine in both cases.

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 04:12:14 AM
I answered the first point from Carrol already.
No, this is obviously not the case you are suggesting. First of all you have a 12AH battery whose voltage does not change for an hour straight. You can see slight fluctuations so it is not some stuck meter either. You have the initial voltage drop at the beginning and it holds that voltage and slightly rises up according him tuning it with different loads and rpm adjustments.
Secondly, if the battery was sulfated then it would have been flat dead in minutes.
Thirdly, if it was in a plateau as I explained the other day in response to A's post, then it actually couldn't be because we had about 200W loads on that motor without changing the voltage other than a little flicker. You try loading down a 12AH battery with a motor and a 200W load for 1 second and tell me what happens. This shows you do not have any working experience with loading batteries. Even if it was a few watts you would see a little difference. But here we have 2 100W LEDs with no voltage drop. Also with zero volts AC or DC across these loads. The People were watching the two voltmeters the whole time. The charging battery remained charging and the input battery held itself. Again, this setup was used to run his shop lights that were over 1000W total exactly like that for many months before he brought it to the US. You guys wanted a claim of significant OU and self-running and when I show this I get this kind of response??  :o Now I don't expect anyone to believe this because you were not there. But this is the kind of thing you have been asking for. BTW, some of the nodes in the box are what I have shown already. But the ones with the big 100W LEDs are other arrangements.

Yes, agreed.

Another thought provoking thing is Rick's motor / charger video. My experiences using this type of setup, both solid state and electro-mechanical, was that initially and for fairly long periods of time, some 'exciting' rising voltage readings resulted, both on charge and source batteries. However, at a certain point in the run, a fairly quick primary terminal voltage fall and a stabilising charging voltage would commence. I deduced that this effect was most likely due to the effects of de-sulfation. This effect was most noticeable on brand new LA batteries (both SLAB's and wet cell) and batteries that had been sitting unused for a considerable time. Perhaps Rick could comment on this. The length of the video demonstration would in my opinion from experience, be quite suitable to demonstrate the 'exciting' effects, without necessarily seeing the downturn.It should also be appreciated that 'Peukerts Law' also operates in reverse, that is with battery loads considerably lower than the C20 rate.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 04:28:35 AM
Grow up endlessnonsense. There were about 60 people there. This was at the end of the day after most had left. Your insults show who you are. You have not a clue what was going on actually. The bulb was the same brightness the whole time it was in the water. Try turning your youtube setting up beyond 144 buddy. This is a high quality upload of 9GB. Maybe stop the drinking before you watch videos and comment.  :P

So everything you say is a lie I see. Are you just hopping that people don't watch this for themselves? What a disinfo troll!! BATTERIES WERE NOT DECREASING. They stabilize. The charging battery was around 11.80V before and charged up. The input battery remained the same after the slight voltage drop. It also rose higher.
These were not dimly lit LEDs. There were 2 100W LEDS and the camera naturally makes adjustments to light. I never said this was meant to prove anything. This is meant to teach people who want to learn. You are just a mocker who does not want to believe in OU. Just here to turn people away. Grow up man.

Obviously this video is really disturbing to these troublemakers. They are really upset and panicking like the crazy woman last year clawing at the front door when Kavanagh was becoming supreme court justice.  ::) :o All they can do is throw a tantrum and heap abuse. It just makes me laugh. No one cares buddy. You add no value to any of this.


Convention?  There were about 20 ragtag retirees at that thing none of whom had a technical clue about what is going on.  All amazed and talking silliness about "not normal electricity".  What was the point of dropping the LED in the glass of water and in the end it did not light anyway hahaha

Whats going on around the box??   I know exactly what you mean so when I say in light hearted fashion that the biggest thing going on around that box is two whopping batteries (THAT ARE STILL DECREASING IN VOLTAGE) AND SOME VERY DIMLY LIT bogus load LEDS, don't think I do not know what you mean.  There are several hairpin type Tesla setups that can excite the environment and do what you demonstrate.   PLEASE!!!.....that Indian looking pot belly guy was an embarrassment talking nonsense.


STOP implying OU when there is none.  YES you can keep adding loads on these type circuits and in SOME cases the main driver will decrease in consumption.  YES you have to match impedances and you cannot over work the circuit with infinite output.  However, Rick you still talk too much and post lengthy winded nonsense. 


The only people buying your garbage that flows from your mouth are the uneducated.


A couple brave retirees in that video kept pointing out that the battery voltages were falling.    There is no OU in THAT system.  Anyone with skills and versed in the art can brightly light LEDS and replicate but how bout you just put as many coils as you want around the main driver, RECTIFY properly and then charge a battery/s.  What you are doing there is not even 90% efficient.

Your kit with those miniscule red leds…...put a real load on it
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 04:35:55 AM
Glad you're going. This thread is about confirmation of claims and the focus was the kit. I am not making this about the kit but about the processes. You are just bent on assuming evil at every point. Your spirit is evident to all. Why don't you do something constructive rather than just assume evil. Again, your agitation is merely because you don't want people to believe this. Well I actually don't want people to conclude anything from this. This is just for people who already know these things and are looking for things they can try. That is the purpose of this threat is it not? Again, go do something useful or what is the point of your words?

My thoughts exactly.  Its an advertisement thread for kits anyway
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on June 26, 2019, 07:24:20 AM
   Rick:   Sorry for offending you. But, I expected your answer.
   You are so full of it... Show the device running a 1000w load. You want us to believe you. Prove your point.   I'm not into your game. YOU have shown nothing. No schematic. SHOW the device running the 200w load, leave the device running for days...   SHOW it running a 1000w watt load.  YOU WON'T.  You get a comment and review saying that the battery running your kit drains, you ignore that.
Really!
   I've had enough of your insults.
                                                 NickZ   That's it, over and out...

   
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 08:20:38 AM
Nick,
Now you are a liar, cause you said you were gone. So is it really "it" this time. I think it is you who needs to put up or shut up. Looks like I am putting up more than you deserve to see. But all you can do is insult with your shouts. You are obviously really angry because you don't want this shown. If it was as you claim then you would just laugh or ignore it. The level of your hostility is revealing to everyone your commitment to suppress this. It is you who are playing the game of I'm gone, but I'm back and I'm gone. Peek a boo!  ???
You have not even watched the video. What's all the fuss? Are you jealous? Or have you failed as a troll?

Yes I am full of this subject. I have put 15 years full time into this. What have you done of any worth here?

You still don't get it. I have shown schematics. This is the motor I have shown for years. This is the SSG circuit. Yes people are fuming now because they said years ago the system was useless. I showed years before this video the same things if you were around. As for the box, if you bothered to read, obviously not, you would see the various options that Tesla gave you. This is not hard to do, it just requires basic understanding of resonance and impedance matching with careful measurements of wire, etc. I have shown everyone the basics of doing this without needing the tuning. But you don't care about such things anyway. Oh wait, where's Nick? He's catching some Zs  8) and is gone now. Very well we are all better for it.

I guess I have shown nothing. What does it matter? Why so upset unless this touches a nerve. Worried that people will now have what they need to move foreword? Worried that this was what people were calling for?

Guess what? I cannot prove anything over the Internet, just like you cannot prove you're not a troll (although we have all the evidence of such piling up with each attack). If you were around this last week you would have seen I do not try and prove anything over the internet. People come to my meetings and see these things in person. I have shown such things running for 2 days straight over 22 hours people could examine every detail and use their meters and see such things done in several ways. IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT IN CYBERLAND. You are in cyberland and therefore are meaningless. I am both in cyberland and in the real world doing real work. I give real demonstrations but more importantly I show people how to do this. You just attack. You don't even know what you are attacking because you don't pay attention to any details but what you think will suit your agenda here.
You don't get it, we have shown such things running for days. This shows a small example of where people were observing this. I have shown big boats and given rides. Cars, lawnmowers, huge industrial fans and ceiling fans and smaller fans. Generators, etc., etc., etc. This is old news Nick. But then who are you anyway? I have shown 200W loads, 1000W loads, and what kind of load you think a 10,000 pound 26' boat would be. Yes, I ran that first with a forklift motor at 132V 350A. Do the math if you can Nick  ;) Nick, it is not that I won't because I do, again and again. Now my customers come back several times. They really are great people.
I don't get a comment saying that the battery running your kit drains. You invent that Really. I doubt you have had enough. You are hooked, you can't leave this alone. You are all drama, and I have seen your kind for years. You can't make up your mind. It cannot be. I don't want it to be. Or maybe it's all about trying to trigger a reaction. Get Rick to share even more information. Yeah, provoke reaction. You see I am not affected by your games because I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. I only try and help people prove to themselves. I am not trying to control anyone like you are. It is up to you if you want to eat, I can only bring you the blessings of food. You can reject whatever you want. Or maybe you do see it and just don't want others to have it. Who knows the extent of your games. It is just drama without cause. I mean really what are you even doing on a forum like this? Why are you so upset. You need help, serious help.

   Rick:   Sorry for offending you. But, I expected your answer.
   You are so full of it... Show the device running a 1000w load. You want us to believe you. Prove your point.   I'm not into your game. YOU have shown nothing. No schematic. SHOW the device running the 200w load, leave the device running for days...   SHOW it running a 1000w watt load.  YOU WON'T.  You get a comment and review saying that the battery running your kit drains, you ignore that.
Really!
   I've had enough of your insults.
                                                 NickZ   That's it, over and out...

   
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 26, 2019, 08:49:02 AM
Rick,


I'm not just thinking about this, but before I throw a circuit together there are some things I need to visualise in my mind.



you said: "BTW, some of the nodes in the box are what I have shown already. But the ones with the big 100W LEDs are other arrangements." Maybe theses arrangements are the transverse ones, air-grounded by "what surrounds the box"... ;)


Say I run a solid state SG as my one wire impulse generator, do you see a problem if it is run from a grounded power supply to make these experiments, or even run by a battery but the fet driving circuit is run from a little 15V power supply? Does this create problems to be connected to the ground on the input? Else I just run everything from the battery.


Also, from the video you posted, I see it doesn't matter if the energizer coils are small, but you said that the first coil on the one wire transmission determines the output of the following ones, so, at least the first one better have some mass, correct? It's probably best to make them all equal to get them resonant at the same frequency...


So the impedances give the best results when in resonance, and you also said impedance matched. Do you mean matching the impedance of the tanks to get resonance, or matched impedance from the resonating impedance to the load, like a step down secondary?


thanks,
Mario




Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 09:04:48 AM
You really have to go back and look at Tesla's circuits and read what he said about how this works. Until you get the idea you will be looking for certain parts arrangements to hopefully stumble upon something. That just will never work. "throwing a circuit together" just doesn't work. It first clicks in the mind and then you can make it work many ways.
There are more than several options there. The transverse gives you the option to expand the network.
Grounded input supply is different. That is not what we are doing here. It is not impossible to do but is not this. The idea is that you don't need a supply once it is set up. Grounding is a very significant influence, especially where grounded...
What I said about the first coil is only the basic level testing not tuned/resonance.
Equal or balance is important and remains to be understood.
There is matching impedance with the load and matching with the input--two different things.

Rick
I'm not just thinking about this, but before I throw a circuit together there are some things I need to visualise in my mind.
you said: "BTW, some of the nodes in the box are what I have shown already. But the ones with the big 100W LEDs are other arrangements." Maybe theses arrangements are the transverse ones, air-grounded by "what surrounds the box"... ;)
Say I run a solid state SG as my one wire impulse generator, do you see a problem if it is run from a grounded power supply to make these experiments, or even run by a battery but the fet driving circuit is run from a little 15V power supply? Does this create problems to be connected to the ground on the input? Else I just run everything from the battery.
Also, from the video you posted, I see it doesn't matter if the energizer coils are small, but you said that the first coil on the one wire transmission determines the output of the following ones, so, at least the first one better have some mass, correct? It's probably best to make them all equal to get them resonant at the same frequency...
So the impedances give the best results when in resonance, and you also said impedance matched. Do you mean matching the impedance of the tanks to get resonance, or matched impedance from the resonating impedance to the load, like a step down secondary?
thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 26, 2019, 10:01:40 AM

You know Rick, you really have a gift in trying to make people look like idiots. Do you do this to always have a feeling of superiority or what?


I didn't mean I'll just throw whatever circuit together, ok? I'm trying to articulate precise questions like:


Can having a ground (input power supply) hinder the basic one wire experiment I'm trying to do? Should I better avoid it??? Yes, no??


 You wrote: "there is matching impedance with the load and matching with the input--two different things". Yes I know that. My question is which one were you referring to when you mentioned it earlier?


But I'll probably always just be a fool to you no matter what I do or write, so I may just stop begging for your guidance and go back working on my own.


Mario





You really have to go back and look at Tesla's circuits and read what he said about how this works. Until you get the idea you will be looking for certain parts arrangements to hopefully stumble upon something. That just will never work. "throwing a circuit together" just doesn't work. It first clicks in the mind and then you can make it work many ways.
There are more than several options there. The transverse gives you the option to expand the network.
Grounded input supply is different. That is not what we are doing here. It is not impossible to do but is not this. The idea is that you don't need a supply once it is set up. Grounding is a very significant influence, especially where grounded...
What I said about the first coil is only the basic level testing not tuned/resonance.
Equal or balance is important and remains to be understood.
There is matching impedance with the load and matching with the input--two different things.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 26, 2019, 11:04:13 AM
FWIW, i am still working on this and build myself 6 new coils.

The picture shows the 6 new coils compared to the 5 older smaller ones.

The new ones measure:

6cm diameter
52 turns 0.71mm (AWG 21)
144uH @ 100Khz
0.4 Ohm.

Different compared to the old coils is that the 5nF capacitor is parallel, so we have a parallel LC instead
of a series LC we had. (the big drive coil still is a series LC).
Resonance frequency stays around 180Khz.

Looks like this parallel LC (high impedance, high voltage, low current @ resonance) gives a better match as
the 3W led (after FWB rectification by 4x Bat 46 and buffer cap 220uF) looks stronger.

Seems like i have to build 4 more of those coils to see any effect.

Itsu

Doing some tests with the 6 new coils, not using the gate driver, just the FG (signal passing through the gate driver).

Trying to find out when the coils pick up the highest amount of energy.

Seems either in the middle when parallel to the big coil, or top and bottom when perpendicular to the  big coil.

Big coil was loaded with my P5100 HV probe (2.75pF/10Mohm = @ 180Khz 312Kohm load).
Q seems 3.5Vpp in, 138Vpp out = 39

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

Next things would be to:

# hook up all 6 satellite coils in a ring and charge the supercap stack (with a 5W lamp load) to
  see if they are capable of supplying at least the same amount of current as being inputted into the big coil (at
  same 12V voltage).

# Play with severall coils "coupled" to each other to see if that could increase output without extra loading the input.
  So building an extra 4 coils.

Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 26, 2019, 11:53:35 AM
This is not a disputed point. The radiation goes out and covers about 70% of the area around the coil. This is a common thing which you can see in tuning coils. Again, you just have to play around with the coils and see for yourself. That is one reason for the kit  ;)

This IS a disputed point when it comes to the mutual angles of the input and output coils!
Not the cover of radiation.

My picture below shows the principal of coil couplings in old days radios.

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 12:17:05 PM
You really have to go back and look at Tesla's circuits and read what he said about how this works. Until you get the idea you will be looking for certain parts arrangements to hopefully stumble upon something. That just will never work. "throwing a circuit together" just doesn't work. It first clicks in the mind and then you can make it work many ways.
There are more than several options there. The transverse gives you the option to expand the network.
Grounded input supply is different. That is not what we are doing here. It is not impossible to do but is not this. The idea is that you don't need a supply once it is set up. Grounding is a very significant influence, especially where grounded...
What I said about the first coil is only the basic level testing not tuned/resonance.
Equal or balance is important and remains to be understood.
There is matching impedance with the load and matching with the input--two different things.

Rick
I'm not just thinking about this, but before I throw a circuit together there are some things I need to visualise in my mind.
you said: "BTW, some of the nodes in the box are what I have shown already. But the ones with the big 100W LEDs are other arrangements." Maybe theses arrangements are the transverse ones, air-grounded by "what surrounds the box"... ;)
Say I run a solid state SG as my one wire impulse generator, do you see a problem if it is run from a grounded power supply to make these experiments, or even run by a battery but the fet driving circuit is run from a little 15V power supply? Does this create problems to be connected to the ground on the input? Else I just run everything from the battery.
Also, from the video you posted, I see it doesn't matter if the energizer coils are small, but you said that the first coil on the one wire transmission determines the output of the following ones, so, at least the first one better have some mass, correct? It's probably best to make them all equal to get them resonant at the same frequency...
So the impedances give the best results when in resonance, and you also said impedance matched. Do you mean matching the impedance of the tanks to get resonance, or matched impedance from the resonating impedance to the load, like a step down secondary?
thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 26, 2019, 01:32:04 PM
Carrol that would be more than puzzling indeed. I remember correcting someone on that. So unless I wrote directly opposite then I don't know why you think I confirmed that.
Let's be clear here:
1. The input voltage stays the same on my power supply.
2. The amperage goes down when we load it down most of the time. It can go up under certain circumstances as well.
3. I don't recall saying the coil voltage goes up with added coils, but it can (WHILE THE INPUT VOLTAGE STAYS THE SAME) if you are in a phase mirroring situation and so the coil is also a receiver.
4. Itsu is doing something else, not my setups.
5. Yes, gate driver means just that. It is not driving a gate however, but merely switching directly. It is 12A so it is capable. But the significance is that it creates a fast rate of change. We see the circulating voltage go from 250V without it to 1300V in the kit. The Impulse energy is what we are focusing on besides the oscillating energy gains from resonance. Both are amplifying energy process. Obviously yet to be proved to most people here who haven't yet experimented and are looking to others to confirm such things for them.


Rick, someone who saw one of your demonstrations said that in your demonstration you had to remove your scope because you were afraid of blowing it because the voltage being measured was getting up to 5000 volts.  When I asked you about that you said the probe was measuring the voltage on the primary coil.  That is why I asked about it again.  How can you get  5000 volts across the primary if it is being powered by 12 volts?  So what circuit were you using that would do that?  And the second part of the high-lighted sentence doesn't even make sense.  How can the voltage go up on the primary coil while the input voltage remains the same?


What are you calling circulating voltage?  And where are you measuring it?  A simple schematic of your circuit would help explain a lot.  Or does someone have to buy your kit to see the circuit?

EDIT:  Itsu was kind enough to PM me with information explaining the high voltage.  I was confused about how the gate driver was driving the coil.  Thanks Itsu for the clarification.


Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on June 26, 2019, 01:59:04 PM
Rick
Thanks a lot for sharing your valuable experience here. Also many thanks to A.King for his dedication and his great idea to invite Rick Frederic himself to this forum.

Looks like that you have already covered a lot of things for someone to start this journey. What it needs now I guess is the active personal involvement from the part of the experimenter.

There are many questions yet but as time passes everything finds its place.

Many people just watching quietly not because there is no appreciation of what is being presented, but more as a respect to you and to what you are trying to do. But I am sure you already know, that many people right now are already trying with real bench work to apply the new ideas that have been brought here by you.
Just continue your fascinating work.

Best Regards
Jeg
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 04:45:15 PM
Error page
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 26, 2019, 05:10:11 PM
I think that this environment is just so hostile that people read into things. Mind you this was something I typed in the middle of the night with only 1 hour of sleep, so who knows. I don't say anything to insult anyone. I'm just saying you have really start with Tesla as I said. If you don't want to do that then you really won't get this. There is no superiority in any of this. While it is advanced, it is not complicated. It just takes us opening up our minds to different kinds of energy production/transfer, etc.
I know your question and I said that complicates thing. When you learn how this is working you may be able to deal with that, but I wrote that it is different. It would take a bit of time I don't have at the moment to explain why.
Both.
These are not foolish.

You know Rick, you really have a gift in trying to make people look like idiots. Do you do this to always have a feeling of superiority or what?


I didn't mean I'll just throw whatever circuit together, ok? I'm trying to articulate precise questions like:


Can having a ground (input power supply) hinder the basic one wire experiment I'm trying to do? Should I better avoid it??? Yes, no??


 You wrote: "there is matching impedance with the load and matching with the input--two different things". Yes I know that. My question is which one were you referring to when you mentioned it earlier?


But I'll probably always just be a fool to you no matter what I do or write, so I may just stop begging for your guidance and go back working on my own.


Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on June 26, 2019, 05:45:23 PM
https://archive.org/details/Non-linearTestsForAbhaCoil
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Acca on June 26, 2019, 06:30:30 PM
Rick keep on ...


Your posts are very good.. I like to read them as I have been a  study of Bedini for many years..
Nick demanding proof is a non matter here as his failure is evident..


I give you my support here..


Acca..

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on June 26, 2019, 07:20:01 PM
Hi Rick,
you ask me if I am here because of NickZ (hope translater had worked correctly). No, I am not here, for this people, that against everyone that really wants to help others to find a direction. I will be happy, if he can make a cognitive shift :) but my answer did not have the goal to convince him.
I have seen this Game here - I think - since 2014. What they do with people like Wesley, T-1000 and all the other friendly people here. I have seen it for years what they have done with my very good friend, that has lost neary everything because of his device (it is not practical, but here you can see a simple experiment from him, if you want: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAtqPL_maeg ).
Nearly in every forum or group and also in real life: always the same procedures to distract people from real results.
So why I am here? I hope that everyone that search for answers and reads all this comments can clearly see what is going on here. Hope that they also wake up, and can see a direction, before they lost to much lifetime and faith. Every troll was a wakeup pill for me. I had only to follow all this honest people, that were mostly attacked from this guys. Thank you for that :)
What I also often see in the last years was that "good" people  -for exsample- like Thomas from A. (you know him) show his customers how they overload Li-Ion batteries, but doesn't show any of this important things.
The most is 180° out of phase in this area. When you see all this, eventually you came to a point, that you realize you have to do something and this is the reason why I posted here some comments.

P.S.: thank you for your last video. Amazing! I was able to replicate the zero voltage process with my small bedini, but didn't realize the enormous potential and the importance to keep both sides in balance at this time. I had this strange moment, where the whole system stands still in the same Voltages for round about half a hour, after I added some bad tuned LC Parts and LEDs in the secondary side. The secondary battery was not rise significant in Voltage, because it was not the best and not fully converted I think. After your Video, I realized that was not important to load the second battery, because my additional lights were on and the bedini was running the whole time.
This was just showing what could be done with the motor. It doesn't need to be a motor.
Anyway, as I said, this was used to power all his lights in his shop while the battery did not discharge. It is a small setup for producing over 1000W of continuous running while self-running. This is what all of you have been demanding for years. Now I have unlocked this mystery and what do I get. Insults from Nick. Shows who he really is. He doesn't want anyone to know how to do this. This is a desperate attempt to get people to disbelieve anything to do with me. So what are you here for Nick?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 27, 2019, 02:13:30 AM
Well, you will just have to see for yourself. I'm not sure who would dispute this. The angle would have to be turned more for it to not work. When you are very close like that you can almost turn it in any direction and it will do this.

This IS a disputed point when it comes to the mutual angles of the input and output coils!
Not the cover of radiation.

My picture below shows the principal of coil couplings in old days radios.

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 27, 2019, 02:28:38 AM
Carrol,
I thought that everyone commenting knew what the circuit was from the context of A's initial posting on my kit (not sure what that was however as I came in way after that). The starting point of the kit is to have a frequency generator send a square wave to a fast mosfet driver. It's output will have the red wire go to the inductor which is in series with a capacitor, whose other leg is attached to the common ground (which is many times earth ground). That is a series tank resonant circuit when tuned to the right frequency.

So out of resonance you would have 9V circulating voltage while you have 9V input. But in resonance you can have 1300V while the input and circulating current is maybe 25ma. Without the gate driver the circulating voltage between the cap and the inductor can be around 250V. Yes this is a gain when in resonance. The circulating energy can produce real results at a distance over what it can do out of resonance. It can produce real results in itself under some conditions as well.

As for the 5000V circulating voltage, when we were doing 180,000 CPS we were running the input at 18V and higher amperage (200ma something). Yes the circulating voltage in the coil was very high, and the 100 times probe was only rated for 2500V, and I had just damaged another one doing the same thing. This is common knowledge even though people don't want to admit that it is real gain. Some suppose the circulating amperage is correspondingly lower, but that is a huge mistake and obviously not the case. There is some serious radiation under that condition.
The how is called resonance.


Rick, someone who saw one of your demonstrations said that in your demonstration you had to remove your scope because you were afraid of blowing it because the voltage being measured was getting up to 5000 volts.  When I asked you about that you said the probe was measuring the voltage on the primary coil.  That is why I asked about it again.  How can you get  5000 volts across the primary if it is being powered by 12 volts?  So what circuit were you using that would do that?  And the second part of the high-lighted sentence doesn't even make sense.  How can the voltage go up on the primary coil while the input voltage remains the same?


What are you calling circulating voltage?  And where are you measuring it?  A simple schematic of your circuit would help explain a lot.  Or does someone have to buy your kit to see the circuit?

EDIT:  Itsu was kind enough to PM me with information explaining the high voltage.  I was confused about how the gate driver was driving the coil.  Thanks Itsu for the clarification.


Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 27, 2019, 02:32:28 AM
Jeg,
I really appreciate you saying this. There really isn't much more to say. As you say, it is up to people do experiment and to really understand the key themes.

Rick
Thanks a lot for sharing your valuable experience here. Also many thanks to A.King for his dedication and his great idea to invite Rick Frederic himself to this forum.

Looks like that you have already covered a lot of things for someone to start this journey. What it needs now I guess is the active personal involvement from the part of the experimenter.

There are many questions yet but as time passes everything finds its place.

Many people just watching quietly not because there is no appreciation of what is being presented, but more as a respect to you and to what you are trying to do. But I am sure you already know, that many people right now are already trying with real bench work to apply the new ideas that have been brought here by you.
Just continue your fascinating work.

Best Regards
Jeg
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 27, 2019, 02:46:49 AM
Very good to hear this from you.
Yes, the key is "balance".
There are bunch of options here, and I leave this for people to learn the full way for themselves. I have shown the basic way that gets people started.
Yes, the object is not to charge the batteries but to keep them basically in the same place so that you don't have to rotate them and then you just have the true self-runner. For people really don't want to mess with batteries anyway. It actually is an pain to have to deal with a charging battery just as much as having to charge up an input battery. So we have to start with a discharged battery on the charge side and a charged battery on the input side. Then they will have their minor rise and drops at start up and then just hold out the same. If you unbalance the load and make it too much you can send back more energy to the front and the input charges up. You can drop the charging rate as well if it becomes unbalanced. Someone was trying to suggest that the battery charging was sometimes discharging. But that never was the case. The charging battery started at low voltage and rose up under charge, and merely dropped a little at times due to specific changes in the tuning. It was always charging. But the object is not to charge that battery but to be merely a potential or more like Tesla's end point "P" in his schematics. A terminal point or capacitance.

It think people will finally get this now. It is a whole different day.

Hi Rick,
you ask me if I am here because of NickZ (hope translater had worked correctly). No, I am not here, for this people, that against everyone that really wants to help others to find a direction. I will be happy, if he can make a cognitive shift :) but my answer did not have the goal to convince him.
I have seen this Game here - I think - since 2014. What they do with people like Wesley, T-1000 and all the other friendly people here. I have seen it for years what they have done with my very good friend, that has lost neary everything because of his device (it is not practical, but here you can see a simple experiment from him, if you want: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAtqPL_maeg ).
Nearly in every forum or group and also in real life: always the same procedures to distract people from real results.
So why I am here? I hope that everyone that search for answers and reads all this comments can clearly see what is going on here. Hope that they also wake up, and can see a direction, before they lost to much lifetime and faith. Every troll was a wakeup pill for me. I had only to follow all this honest people, that were mostly attacked from this guys. Thank you for that :)
What I also often see in the last years was that "good" people  -for exsample- like Thomas from A. (you know him) show his customers how they overload Li-Ion batteries, but doesn't show any of this important things.
The most is 180° out of phase in this area. When you see all this, eventually you came to a point, that you realize you have to do something and this is the reason why I posted here some comments.

P.S.: thank you for your last video. Amazing! I was able to replicate the zero voltage process with my small bedini, but didn't realize the enormous potential and the importance to keep both sides in balance at this time. I had this strange moment, where the whole system stands still in the same Voltages for round about half a hour, after I added some bad tuned LC Parts and LEDs in the secondary side. The secondary battery was not rise significant in Voltage, because it was not the best and not fully converted I think. After your Video, I realized that was not important to load the second battery, because my additional lights were on and the bedini was running the whole time.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 27, 2019, 02:48:14 AM
Thank you Acca.

Rick keep on ...


Your posts are very good.. I like to read them as I have been a  study of Bedini for many years..
Nick demanding proof is a non matter here as his failure is evident..


I give you my support here..


Acca..
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 27, 2019, 04:46:28 AM

1hour and 6 minutes in:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVnAU1FmCsg


More clarity on the Heavyside component by a certain person we all know about now.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 27, 2019, 07:58:02 AM
Hi Rick,


ok, I think it finally clicked. This is actually much easier than I thought and very similar to what I have tried countless times over the last years. I just had not understood that with series resonant setups there will be zero voltage across them, and thus is why kirchoff doesn't apply and why you can multiply many setups in series... It's resonance pure at its finest.
There is only one arrangement that gives you zero voltage across it, and as Bearden wrote in one of his papers describing the one wire: "...this i why Tesla so favored series resonance..."


Question: can the load (low impedance) be inserted directly in the middle of each series arrangement, or is a loosely coupled secondary coil more suitable in order to not ruin resonance?


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 27, 2019, 11:38:40 AM
Doing some tests with the 6 new coils, not using the gate driver, just the FG (signal passing through the gate driver).

Trying to find out when the coils pick up the highest amount of energy.

Seems either in the middle when parallel to the big coil, or top and bottom when perpendicular to the  big coil.

Big coil was loaded with my P5100 HV probe (2.75pF/10Mohm = @ 180Khz 312Kohm load).
Q seems 3.5Vpp in, 138Vpp out = 39

Video here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtiTYHEehBw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtiTYHEehBw)

Next things would be to:

# hook up all 6 satellite coils in a ring and charge the supercap stack (with a 5W lamp load) to
  see if they are capable of supplying at least the same amount of current as being inputted into the big coil (at
  same 12V voltage).

# Play with severall coils "coupled" to each other to see if that could increase output without extra loading the input.
  So building an extra 4 coils.

Itsu
So i hooked up all the 6 new coils DC outputs parallel to each other and hooked it up the a 15F supercap stack.
No load on this supercap for now.

Gate driver is running on a 12V battery (12.43V) and pulls 112ma when in resonance and loaded with the 6 coils about 5cm away.

Voltage across the big coil when in resonance and loaded this way is about 2800V (@ 12V square wave input), see screenshot.

The (increasing) voltage on the supercap is about 9.6V and current around 69mA (using the current probe and confirmed by a temporary inserted 1 ohm 1% inductionfree resistor).


Putting the 6 coils closer to the big coil decreases the input current (88mA), but also less current is left for charging the supercap (59mA).

This looks like the same effect as seen earlier with my smaller coils.

Doing some more tests......

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lht-NuijLoM


Itsu 

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on June 27, 2019, 11:49:11 AM
Carrol,
I thought that everyone commenting knew what the circuit was from the context of A's initial posting on my kit (not sure what that was however as I came in way after that). The starting point of the kit is to have a frequency generator send a square wave to a fast mosfet driver. It's output will have the red wire go to the inductor which is in series with a capacitor, whose other leg is attached to the common ground (which is many times earth ground). That is a series tank resonant circuit when tuned to the right frequency.

So out of resonance you would have 9V circulating voltage while you have 9V input. But in resonance you can have 1300V while the input and circulating current is maybe 25ma. Without the gate driver the circulating voltage between the cap and the inductor can be around 250V. Yes this is a gain when in resonance. The circulating energy can produce real results at a distance over what it can do out of resonance. It can produce real results in itself under some conditions as well.

As for the 5000V circulating voltage, when we were doing 180,000 CPS we were running the input at 18V and higher amperage (200ma something). Yes the circulating voltage in the coil was very high, and the 100 times probe was only rated for 2500V, and I had just damaged another one doing the same thing. This is common knowledge even though people don't want to admit that it is real gain. Some suppose the circulating amperage is correspondingly lower, but that is a huge mistake and obviously not the case. There is some serious radiation under that condition.
The how is called resonance.

Thanks Rick for your explanation and thanks to Itsu also for clarifying how the circuit is operating.  I somehow did not connect how the gate driver was being used.  I now understand how the circuit is working.  I think I am getting too old to keep this and other projects in my head.  Unfortunately I will not be able to try any of your experiments because I have a pacemaker and the high level of RF is something I have to avoid.  I have been told I can still use my Ham radio because the high RF is shielded until it reaches the antenna many feet away.

Take care to both of you and good luck with your project.
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 27, 2019, 11:52:43 AM
itsu   :) :D  ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 27, 2019, 04:32:33 PM
Mario,
This is very good to hear. That's what I have been trying to say for some time. I think people overthink it and underthink it. People do not understand the simplicity and gains of resonance and do not get the way the gains work with impulsing. Also negative energy engineering.

Kirchhoff doesn't apply in a true open system. That is a many body system or network. It is a basic "rule" for a single body loop that doesn't have any impulse or resonance (oscillatory energy), or at least ignores the total environmental changes or effects of these processes. It is like measuring and only considering DC while ignoring the turning on or off of the DC. It is an oversimplification of everything that is actually taking place for convenience. You have to ignore the other body reactive loops or prevent them from existing to ensure Kirchhoff's rule works. But if we include the turning on and off of a circuit then it reveals that it never actually applies ever. So it is basically only a rule for a closed loop constant current measurement part of the entire time. It is convenient for some purposes but is very misleading in how it is assumed to be a universal law associated with a misunderstood conservation of energy law. For as soon as you consider the reactive loops in most circuits you find additional energy manifestations here and there that are in addition to the primary loop which I call the death loop (that which kills the source charge). So this is the first point or theme to master in the Selfish Circuit or Loving Paths teaching on free energy. You have to admit to the Loving Paths which are the Tesla reactive loops and understand the single body limited death loop is (analogously selfish) not the only option nor is it even common. Whenever we have impulsing we have another reactive loop appearing in the local environment that we have to deal with at the on and off times in the process. These are problems to be solved and no one really bothers to notice or measure the possible gains from such additional loops. No one wants to consider these as additional loops because a misunderstanding of Kirchhoff is manipulated into the psyche of the student till they are brainwashed. It is a problem to be solved not another body that can be measured or engineered for positive purpose as Tesla and others like me have been doing for 100 years. Walter Lewin drew attention to this dirty little secret and exposed all college textbooks and professors as deceivers.

So this really is the beginning and end of the matter. Once you get the first stage process in the Loving Paths teaching you will be able to just do "more of the same" in the other stages as you add more and more other body reactive loops wherever you want. It is crazy simple. And when it clicks with someone it can bring tears of amazement and laughter. I have seen this happen a few times in the last few weeks. Two friends shared their similar experience saying "we have finally arrived at the moron level of understanding" in reference to the way Don Smith mentions learning the Don Smith Effect requires the moron level of understanding. So it really is easier to understand than everyone assumes. That is why I keep pushing the elimination of assumptions and the prejudice principle and I find that all this is 90 to 95% psychological/spiritual.

Once this hurdle of assumption is overcome and people focus on what they already know, and admit it fully, deep down in their belly, that the reactive loops can provide additional energy that can be useful, then the idea of free energy can be embraced, and that Kirchhoff is understood to be a basic idea apart from the total environmental picture/reality. Suddenly we wake up to a wonderful new world of opportunity. A highly dynamic and reactive world which has no limit to the chain of effects. We go from blindness to sight, from 2D to 3D experience. From single body blind restrictions to the interacting community of living organisms.

Once we accept that a circuit can, and often does, have more than one loop, then the door opens and everything else follows. Stage two then makes sense, and stage three become possible. But without a solid understanding of the basics in stage one then all attempts or considerations of stage three are wishy washy. This is why I realized the need to fully establish the foundations in this teaching and experience. Without the proper many reactive bodies teaching then people have vague notions of free energy which they try to realize (like we find with G's statement on the matter) by guessing and hoping that some random combination of parts in a circuit may eventually show some OU. This really never happens as I have seen so many people try that for 30 years. Even if they do stumble upon something, they then make all their efforts to enshrine that one experience and would probably lose it. This is what we hear happen from time to time when people get some unusual results. Notice the way they talk about it (even on this thread we read the same) as exactly the way I describe. It is some mysterious thing they are hoping to preserve, and it is merely about some circuit arrangement of parts. The focus is on parts as if they are special. There is no real or clear understanding of additional reactive bodies in contrast to single source-killing resistive body circuits. Very few people get that essential starting point in free energy research among all the hundreds of thousands or millions of people. So you can see why I am stressing this.

Once that is embraced and experienced then you move forward with a big grin on your face. It is somewhat analogous to being born again in the new realization and the new opportunity to engineer new loving paths of giving. Then the golden rule kind-of-teachings about it being better to give than receive make sense and become your mission in life. Here it becomes your new research awareness and pursuit. You are seeking to develop many body reactive loops for multiplying energy outputs. This is theme 1 "without which you can do nothing." Implied in theme 1 is additional themes of impulse energy as a real gain, and oscillatory energy as a real gain. Impulse is never alone but creates a reactive loop experience that needs to be dealt with and can be used for gains. Oscillating energy in resonance tank circuits also are in an additional reactive loop environment that can give a useful gain beyond the over simplistic Kirchhoff loop sum total. So these three core themes of free energy are at the heart of the Tesla technology and free energy research. There are also magnetic loops that are similar. And these four themes are the foundation for all electrical free energy systems. So I have said that once you get them then everything is easy and easily understood.

You can easily multiply additional reactive electrical or magnetic loops once you understand what open (additional) loops mean. In my book I show the three types. Chapter 1 is two wire additional body loops. Chapter 2 is single wire additional bodies as in Tesla's examples. Chapter 3 is wireless. And in addition there are some magnetic additional body loops with the motor systems (which also can relate to the parallel paths ideas). This is why I decided to give this important foundation a catchy name Selfish Circuits or Loving Giving Paths. It is an offence to some people because it rebukes not only their greedy prejudiced death loop circuit but also their personal character that is selfish. But once you open your heart and mind to sharing the grace of God to others than yourself you can feed the 5000 with a few loaves and fishes. You have to just create more reactive means to "match" the additional bodies. Each person needs to eat more bread and fish. So we do "more of the same" first stage process. If the first stage created a reactive additional multiplication of the energy, then we can do that again.

That should at least be granted as possible. The only difficult part is doing it in a way that can be endless. And that is more difficult because the entire network of reactive bodies has to be balanced or else it will produce too much energy that can destroy the harmony, or it can produce not enough to continue the multiplying. This calls for additional teaching with other themes. That is advanced teaching about phasing and magnetic and dielectric interactions with multiple reactive bodies. You have to learn impedance matching and mirroring and related processes. People are not ready for this even though they want to jump into these experiences without taking the first steps. But really, once you learn the first theme/stage you may realize that the rest is already taught and given in existing technology. You can apply what is taught beyond the college level teaching once you understand the basics of many reactive body loop networks. You can use existing math for this. The nonlinear reactive simulation software works do show you how to design all this. That is why Don Smith learned this early on and made all of his models with that software. There is no point guessing. And there are endless options with all the parts we have available.

It is all over now. People are fed up with "more of the same" of going nowhere in this research. Now the cat is out of the bag. There is no more excuse for anyone who reads this. There is no more need to find free energy when it is clearly spelled out here. The foundations are laid. No longer be fooled by the games of personality cults people. The game has been to try and hide the foundations so that you depend upon someone or some product as your answer. They have tried to make it mysterious or complicated so that you would not get it. That is the free energy teachers have mislead you for a long time. And the schools have done the same thing for greed. They have made a convoluted system to divert you from the simplistic truths that God revealed in His creation. They control you by the death loop to kill the source charge. They don't want you to experience and share the grace of God.

Hi Rick,
ok, I think it finally clicked. This is actually much easier than I thought and very similar to what I have tried countless times over the last years. I just had not understood that with series resonant setups there will be zero voltage across them, and thus is why kirchoff doesn't apply and why you can multiply many setups in series... It's resonance pure at its finest.
There is only one arrangement that gives you zero voltage across it, and as Bearden wrote in one of his papers describing the one wire: "...this i why Tesla so favored series resonance..."


Question: can the load (low impedance) be inserted directly in the middle of each series arrangement, or is a loosely coupled secondary coil more suitable in order to not ruin resonance?


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 27, 2019, 10:17:26 PM
So i hooked up all the 6 new coils DC outputs parallel to each other and hooked it up the a 15F supercap stack.
No load on this supercap for now.

Gate driver is running on a 12V battery (12.43V) and pulls 112ma when in resonance and loaded with the 6 coils about 5cm away.

Voltage across the big coil when in resonance and loaded this way is about 2800V (@ 12V square wave input), see screenshot.

The (increasing) voltage on the supercap is about 9.6V and current around 69mA (using the current probe and confirmed by a temporary inserted 1 ohm 1% inductionfree resistor).


Putting the 6 coils closer to the big coil decreases the input current (88mA), but also less current is left for charging the supercap (59mA).

This looks like the same effect as seen earlier with my smaller coils.

Doing some more tests......

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lht-NuijLoM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lht-NuijLoM)


Itsu


I did some tests looking for sympathetic resonance (sorry for he pronunciation in the video) between 3 new coils setup in line with the big coil.

12.4V on the gate driver, 3700V on the big coil in resonance (180Khz).

The 3 coils in line with the big coil each have a 3W led attached which it lit according to their distance to the big coil.

Changing the distance inbetween the 3 new coils does not influence the last not lit led.
Only when putting the middle coil ontop of the last coil its led comes on dimly.

Not sure this is sympathetic resonance or plain transformer action, i guess the latter.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8pl1KxBq90


Itsu
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on June 27, 2019, 10:32:02 PM
Excellent demo Itsu. Maybe Rick can conduct a similar test setup and measurement video with his coil arrangement to show OU.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on June 27, 2019, 11:06:31 PM

I did some tests looking for sympathetic resonance (sorry for he pronunciation in the video) between 3 new coils setup in line with the big coil.

12.4V on the gate driver, 3700V on the big coil in resonance (180Khz).

The 3 coils in line with the big coil each have a 3W led attached which it lit according to their distance to the big coil.

Changing the distance inbetween the 3 new coils does not influence the last not lit led.
Only when putting the middle coil ontop of the last coil its led comes on dimly.

Not sure this is sympathetic resonance or plain transformer action, i guess the latter.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8pl1KxBq90


Itsu
 

Itsu, after watching your video above, I'm curious as to what happens with the input energy to the transmitting coil when you stack the receivers?  If I understand correctly, you are measuring the power input to the gate driver which will remain fairly constant, but it should increase or decrease as the top device in the driver is supplying current to the transmitter coil.

The consideration here is that the coupling between the receiver coils will be less when all are placed on the same horizontal plane but significantly increased when placed end to end like when you stacked them.  With each receiver being tuned to resonance individually, there may be a unique situation going on when they are then coupled tighter via stacking!

Just a thot and since you already have the test setup, curious minds would like to know!!

Edit: OOps, I didn't watch the last minute or so of your video in which you answered my question so please disregard.

Regards,
Pm 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 12:29:27 AM
Itsu and others looking at your scope shot's it appears your pumping an inductor with a square wave that is producing a 50/50 sine wave, isn't that just an AM carrier wave that incurs the normal losses any old AM rig would incur ?

Sorry lads but i'm sure lots of you have fridges and on those fridges you must have magnets, have you ever given it a thought where the energy comes from for that to happen ? imagine if you could turn that energy on and off  ;D
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 28, 2019, 01:28:08 AM
Itsu:  Try experimenting with an earth ground.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 28, 2019, 10:15:11 AM
.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on June 28, 2019, 10:16:51 AM

I did some tests looking for sympathetic resonance (sorry for he pronunciation in the video) between 3 new coils setup in line with the big coil.

12.4V on the gate driver, 3700V on the big coil in resonance (180Khz).

The 3 coils in line with the big coil each have a 3W led attached which it lit according to their distance to the big coil.

Changing the distance inbetween the 3 new coils does not influence the last not lit led.
Only when putting the middle coil ontop of the last coil its led comes on dimly.

Not sure this is sympathetic resonance or plain transformer action, i guess the latter.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8pl1KxBq90


Itsu
 

Hi, thanks for sharing tour attempts and your courage to recreate , without the original, the resonant induction coupler kit from Rick Friedrich. I dont know if you made any progress, but your setup looks like you have. Although i guess the last coil is not perfectly matched (either by variating its induction or capacitance which are 2 faces of the same coin of resonance), which probably would explain why it doesn't light as readily. When you put it above it gets into resonance, so it lights, and to me that's because its capacitance is modified  by the  other coil's . if you try again, just  passing your hand over you could set it to light. This is one of the tuning experiments  that are in the kit, note. Other suggestion : use variable capacitors instead. ( i have not used them yet but am sure  it will be needed when i multiply  several coils of my setup, knowing that they like to  be  perfectly matched ! Cheers
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 10:26:51 AM
Itsu:  Try experimenting with an earth ground.
Yes we all like to play in the sand with our little one's, wile we have the time here.
but that's not the trick 'really' is it! You talk about DVD7 energy from vacuum series.
And yet you play with squiggly lines in a wire you call a sine wave, and i'm the idiot wasting space.
I ask you this, how the hell did tesla get access to HF ? cus your ignoring something he did your not.
You need to get back the Tesla's basics.
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on June 28, 2019, 10:53:42 AM
Dear Rick,
Today you are the undisputable master of this thread and I don't  see  this go away for a loooong time  !
100% of the fellas on this forum are learning from you. Some people behave badly, but has not been Jesus in the same situation while savings live and couteracting suffering ? So be our modest Light ans keep the good laughs going on.

I would love to  see you show or describe a few Ateliers around the RICK. Please note i live very far, so can not attend your europe or USA or Canada meetings... :
- how to  set up a stan Meyer fuel cell in place of a capacitor in one of the kit's tanks
- how To set up a small 1v DC (or AC) motor powered by a tank in resonance in the kit,
- how To set up a magnet pushed by the coil in one of the kit's tank, (To recreate an energizer with negative electricity )
- how To light Bulbs and LEDs from one of the resonant tanks (DONE!)
- how to get heat from one of the resonant tanks...
- a practical exercice of impedance matching in one  of the kit's tank (ie  what is that ? How to  do that ?)

...That's the kind of things i would luuuuuve to learn to do from a teacher like You, but too newbie to know. (And  not confident to build a massive HV Don Smith device !)

Please enrich your kit with these Ateliers !!!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 28, 2019, 10:56:55 AM

Thanks for the responses guys.

Hoppy,

thanks.


PM,   

yes, that last minute test needs to be repeated as my body seems to be influencing the big coil
and slight movements of my body distorts the input current into the gate driver.

More carefull and accurate measurements are needed there.

As for tightly coupling the bothy coils, i did couply them tightly by bringing them closely (almost toughing)
together (no led on) and by stacking (led on), so there obviously is a unique difference in coupling.


AG,

i use 50% duty cycle on the input square wave as that is what is being used in the original setup/kit.


A.king21,

yes,  will involve ground wires too, but my earlier tests with ground wires did not saw much difference.


seaad,

i see what you mean.



Benfr,

My coils are very similar, they all measure very close to 144uH.
Concerning the variable cap, this is more difficult as we need 5nF to get in resonance on 180KHz with the 144uH.
I can do the hand thing to influence the resonance point of the satellite coils though.
And i do not see any variable caps in the original setup/kit

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 28, 2019, 11:25:00 AM
https://www.radiomuseum.org/forum/tuned_bandpass_filters.html

The closer the pic up coils comes to each other the more the Curve looks as in pic C !
The closer the pic up coils comes to each other the more the frequency in them  will be detuned / off the center frequency.

The  common bottom coupling coil, in the text not needed in our OU experiments.

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 12:24:40 PM
Thanks for the responses guys.

AG,

i use 50% duty cycle on the input square wave as that is what is being used in the original setup/kit.


i see what you mean.

Benfr,

My coils are very similar, they all measure very close to 144uH.
Concerning the variable cap, this is more difficult as we need 5nF to get in resonance on 180KHz with the 144uH.
I can do the hand thing to influence the resonance point of the satellite coils though.
And i do not see any variable caps in the original setup/kit

Itsu
Yes Itsu  the 50% could be misleading the point pay attention, I made a 1mhz8 tesla coil, I pulse it with a 56 usec pulse
with a zero gap in the milliseconds (variable) range (thats at peek resonance) i look at the display and it's now a distorted sine wave  ;D ;D
an AM| carrier wave nothing special! so where does the magic creep in ?
Now watch JB's DVD no 7 !  or similar teach in video, whats missing ?  :-\  :-\
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 28, 2019, 01:05:07 PM
Hi Arne,

It is good you show the behaviour of magnetically coupled resonant LC circuits, these characteristics are fully valid for such setups discussed here. The best energy transfer can happen when all the LC circuits mutually have the critical coupling between any and each LC circuit present in the setup, all tuned to resonance. This situation is very hard to achieve because any adjustment on any of the LC circuits influence all the others, a slow and arduous process. You mention the bottom coupling coil is not needed: I agree, it is one of the coupling methods between two resonant LC circuits, other methods include capacitive top or bottom coupling etc. In the present setup discussed here the energy goes through via mutual inductive coupling. In your drawing attached to Reply #771 you show an interesting arrangements for the receiver coils, I have not found such arrangement shown yet. Only tests can give answers how effective this array may be. 

Hi Itsu,

Very good experiments, thanks for showing and thanks for taking the trouble to do them. Regarding the test you show with placing one receiver coil onto the top of the most outer one: I think this coupling method increases the effective receiving area for those coils. The two coils mutually become the extension of each other in that position as if you had increased their length hence their number of turns.
Side notice: with an L meter the increased inductance due to the mutual coupling can be measured (when the 5nF tuning caps are removed). Notice also that the top coil gets into a physically higher position with respect to its place when it was in the middle between the innermost and the outermost coils, I mention this because earlier you showed field strength around the TX coil by a small probe coil with a indicator LED and you had a situation when there was stronger field at the top and at the bottom of the TX coil while there was little at its center, then vice verse.  This should be checked with this big TX coil having the 3.4 kVpp across it. The HV probe may also infuence the EM field distributon, unfortunately.
I can only wish you persistence to achieve your goals. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on June 28, 2019, 01:41:28 PM
Quote from: gyulasun link=topic=17491.msg535799#msg535799 da
Notice also that the top coil gets into a physically higher position with respect to its place when it was in the middle between the innermost and the outermost coils, I mention this because earlier you showed field strength around the TX coil by a small probe coil with a indicator LED and you had a situation when there was stronger field at the top

Yes, i agree
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 28, 2019, 01:46:06 PM

Seaad,  Gyula,

good info, and similar what i just thought up during my twice a week 10KM jogging run here in the woods (highly recommended).

I did some resonance tests earlier with 2 bifilar coils, see this thread post and video:
https://overunity.com/17186/the-bifilar-pancake-coil-at-its-resonant-frequency/msg505231/#msg505231 (https://overunity.com/17186/the-bifilar-pancake-coil-at-its-resonant-frequency/msg505231/#msg505231)

It clearly shows that the single resonance point (e.g. 180Khz) of 2 coils will move apart when tightly
coupling them (overcoupling).

I think thats what happens with the 2 coils moving close to each other yesterday, they get both out of resonance,
while when putting them ontop of each other they will get a better coupling.

I can/will test that out with my Spectrum Analyzer / Tracking generator.

In a similar way, that could explain why when approaching the big coil with (a) smaller coil(s) the voltage of the
big coil (and the input) goes down because we force the big coil out of resonance.

Perhaps a kind of PLL system is needed on the big coil to keep it at resonance by automatically moving the frequency.

Thanks,  Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 28, 2019, 01:52:53 PM
itsu
I think we need a (PLL) / freq. - locking device to every coil!
With a rigid setup it is possible to trim it by hand.
That's going to be as time consuming as trimming an old analogue
television I.M. circuit / coils.

R. Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on June 28, 2019, 02:03:59 PM
Itsu : i do the hand thing to influence the resonance point of the satellite coils though.
And i do not see any variable caps in the original setup/kit

OK but you didn't buy it, so how do you happen To know there isn't  ::)
There  are.
Good so with your  hand you could make the 3rd coil in  resonance ? If yes that's good.
Hence  the  usefulness of having that slight capacitance change... With a variable capacitor.
Again courtesy of Rick's kit...thanks to  Him  !

Aking : impressed with your  setup !  I don't  have any big coil myself... I just have like 8 coils selfmade , made to  build a complementary kit starting from Rick's.  some coils are identical in length and some are integrer divisions in length because i'm trying To play with full wavelength instead of 1\4 wavelength (i assume it's better with full wl than 4rth wl but please interject  if i misunderstood anything from Rick and Don !). Good luck Sir.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 28, 2019, 02:48:46 PM
Yes we all like to play in the sand with our little one's, wile we have the time here.
but that's not the trick 'really' is it! You talk about DVD7 energy from vacuum series.
And yet you play with squiggly lines in a wire you call a sine wave, and i'm the idiot wasting space.
I ask you this, how the hell did tesla get access to HF ? cus your ignoring something he did your not.
You need to get back the Tesla's basics.
AG
Stop being such an insulting *@*(*(@@   Why not show us YOUR OU device.


We all know why and so do you.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 03:05:19 PM
The kit is 1.25MHz and always comes with a variable cap. Most people ordered the extra coil with comes with another variable cap.
At one point I did the big coil at around 184KHz, and the smaller coils needed 5nf to match that frequency. But the big coil always had a very good variable cap that I adjusted to the variable cap. I had just made that big coil randomly to fill up the 6" PVC which gave some interesting results. But this gave much less benefit than making the newer coils with much less turns to match the original coils running at the original frequency of 1.25 MHz (actually it ended up being 1.1 something). The higher frequency made a significant improvement even as higher CPS gives that much more output (if you have parts that can respond that fast, because these bulbs can't respond that fast).

One point to be understood from the kit is that even though you can have very many combinations of capacitance and inductance combinations in resonance at various frequencies there is higher Q and therefore higher gains at certain frequencies over others. This is like a sweet spot. This tells you something. What? So using the small coils at 180kHz with the very good 5nF caps did not produce the same results as using the kit frequency of 1.25 MHz (around) with 100pf. Also, using the big coil at 180KHz at the matched capacitance was not nearly as good as using it with a different frequency that allowed for over 5000V. But in order to use the same frequency with the little kit coils which had 5nF (for lack of any other caps available at that range, and a lack of having variable caps at that high value) I had to settle for around 184KHz to match them. Of course when we load the receiver coils down the frequency does change as well so we need at least a variable cap on the main coil or individual coils.

The other very significant adjustment to each coil is adding plate grounds or earth grounds. I do not mention earth grounds in the kit as I avoid recommending anything that can hurt someone. However, the transmitter coil is usually grounded if you use a power supply and/or a frequency generator that plugs in the wall. I noticed a major difference in output if the AC to the power supply did not have earth grounding. The results were about half the power. The individual coils can have double the power if connected to earth ground or even touching it (body ground). It depends on what side you touch and it's tuning. This is all part of the kit instructions. You will not understand all these things without the kit and I am not about to give all you the kit for free if you expect that. lol

Don Smith had a well developed electron theory which claimed that resonance draws in more electrons into the local area which give rise to more energy production if the are properly directed. This is gain is not properly realized in the kit because it becomes dangerous. We only see a doubling of the output on the transmitter and doubling of the receiver coils output with basic grounding. The full grounding method of Don Smith is more like a cycling of electrons in a loop with input and output in a very specific way. This is the commercial system not shown on the internet or to the general public. These kinds of systems are too dangerous for these hobby forums and would result in serious injury and even death for some people. It is not worth risking that for one person. This is why we do a small kit with limited tests. The kit can produce 1300V circulating voltage with various ma input and circulating ma up to 400 so that is fairly powerful. And earth groundings can result in significant outputs depending on what you do. So while the transmitter can have an earth grounding merely by plugging in a power supply, I never say to use earth groundings for the receiver coils. In the picture I have some metal balls as grounds that are like what Tesla showed with plates (represented by the letter P). The plate groundings are like added capacitance but are also a source of electrons. And your hand or body is also a large capacitance and a source of electrons. It is important to understand that the air itself is a ground and source of electrons (according to the theory). With resonance and Tesla coils the resonance process draws in electrons to itself as mentioned. The plates and your body will give up electrons more or less like the diffusion process in chemistry. It is more than that. It is like a magnetic process. So anything like this will suck electrons from the surrounding environment. The plates act like antennas, and so does your body. So the only healthy thing to do is use earth groundings as the richest source of electrons. This is why you will usually see a significant difference in output with earth groundings. And a fairly high gain from body grounding. But I also avoid mentioning touching the terminals as this can cause significant RF burn from the free leg of the neon bulb, and it also can drain you of electrons. Most people make Tesla coils in a way that rob them of electrons, which makes them feel worse and who knows what all the negative effects are. My student in the last video I uploaded from 4 years ago became an expert in this subject of using Tesla coils the proper way where he made them so that they would always be grounded and draw electrons from only the inside area of the coils and then would radiate out electrons in a way that was more edifying rather than electron robbing. This resulted in him, like Tesla, only needing to sleep 2 hours a night and he spent all those night hours studying these kinds of things. He gave very strong warnings against using Tesla coils in the way many people use them. But it is a requirement to connect the bottom of the Secondary Tesla coil to earth ground. So one of the reasons is because it is the richest source of electrons.

I know you guys will not believe these things and will laugh at this but it is the theory and all my experiments and replications of Don Smith show exactly the results he claimed. Again, I do not attempt to prove such things over the internet, but I offer up this information here for free and you can do what you want with that. Maybe some of you will benefit and others will just laugh or even hate me for sharing it. IDK. But this is some of the theory on grounding and how electrons can be used for creating gains. I have given an overview of how the old Klystron uses electrons in the Don Smith book also. But it is important not only to understand how electrons, and sources of electrons, can add to system output, but to also realize how rf systems can deplete you of electrons. Proper lab testing is therefore recommended by professionals understanding these things. I have suitable faraday shielding and even clothing that I show at my meetings even for doing experiments with this kit. Some people are more sensitive to such things than others. In our day there is a lot of rf radiation that is very bad for our bodies and it is going to get a lost worse with 5G. Not just with communication signals but with actual wireless power transfer. It's time to move out of the cities.

I can see here that people do not understand these things even at the basic understanding of conventional practice. While many people will not see grounding as an actual gain, there are many regulations that require earth groundings for safety. So much of what I have shared is implied with commercial equipment, especially with rf processes. It was primarily for safety considerations that I made the kit small so that people would not play around with larger setups and hurt themselves. People are so desperate to find free energy that they will risk their lives to do that. I cannot encourage that. People can stumble onto something all of a sudden and really hurt themselves. We see just about everyone make mistakes with smaller setups. So it would be just a matter of time before they did that with larger setups where there is no forgiveness.

Grounding as a source of electrons results in gains. You are always grounded more or less. Air ground, frame ground, or earth grounds are more or less electron contributors as mentioned. Once you understand that and cycling, you can use that to your advantage. Experience with this shows you just how sensitive and important the entire environment is in estimating all your energy gains and losses. If you had lenses on your glasses to see all the magnetic and capacitance relationships you would laugh at how silly modern technology is wasteful and self-destructive. You would also protect yourself in many ways. As I wrote in my last post, which was the most important thing I ever wrote online probably (and which apparently no one cares to read), you have to get used to thinking outside of the basic monolithic closed loop circuit and properly consider all the reactive loops in the local environment. This kit opens up the mind to that. You see how even touching the dial on the cheap red board frequency generator can change the tuning. You can see how the whole environment can become electrified where even holding one leg of a neon bulb within 10 feet of the transmitter can light it up (as I showed in Canada a few months back). The whole area can become resonant so that you can power many loads without drawing more energy to power the transmitter. The man coils video shows a small sample of that. I could have had about 500 coils all around that transmitter, and if suitable frequency conversion was done I could have much more dramatic results. So once you understand these basics you can do whatever you want, as long as you do it safely. Once you begin to realize many body reactive loops as apposed to single body closed resistive loops then you can begin to experience free energy. That is why I said that some of you cannot get out of that closed minded loop that ignores the real world and big picture. The kit helps with that and you realize there is much more going on than what the over-simplistic college level teaching gives you. I shouldn't have to say all these things on an OU forum because it should all be well known by everyone. But the lack of response in the last posting says a lot to me. There is nothing more to say than that. Good luck then confining all your attention to the single loop assumptions, as there will never be any free energy in such a narrow slice of the real world.

And i do not see any variable caps in the original setup/kit

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 03:14:41 PM
AG,
I don't understand any of your points made here to A. Not one thing you say makes any sense here or even resembles the quote you give about grounding. All of Tesla's systems were grounded so what are you talking about?

Yes we all like to play in the sand with our little one's, wile we have the time here.
but that's not the trick 'really' is it! You talk about DVD7 energy from vacuum series.
And yet you play with squiggly lines in a wire you call a sine wave, and i'm the idiot wasting space.
I ask you this, how the hell did tesla get access to HF ? cus your ignoring something he did your not.
You need to get back the Tesla's basics.
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 03:19:24 PM
Yes, that is a big discussion many have had over the years. You do not turn it off but gate it the right way to work for you. Or you tap the very high frequency. Or there are other things you can do. It is good to at least start thinking about these things. Once you properly understand what is going on you can design several different kinds of systems. There are many that have been made over hundreds of years...

Sorry lads but i'm sure lots of you have fridges and on those fridges you must have magnets, have you ever given it a thought where the energy comes from for that to happen ? imagine if you could turn that energy on and off  ;D
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 04:15:32 PM
Well since no one even commented on the most important thing I have probably ever written on the internet, yesterday, then I can't help anyone here if they don't want to start at the starting point in free energy research. People are looking for a magical circuit as if parts are their answers. This is an entirely wrong way of looking at all this which gives rise to millions of posts over the years that results in no progress. People will "forever be learning and never come to the knowledge of the truth." Once you begin there then you will easily answer these questions yourself.
I am no master, just a simple backyard mechanic hobbyist philosopher. People don't care what I have to say. It is assumed to be automatically wrong while other people are assumed to be true automatically. It is interesting to watch that.
I don't know what "Ateliers" means.
The key to doing Stan is to do what he said. It is really that simple. You need PLL and to form the cell first. End of story, easy to do. The mystery is why people do something else.
If I do any of these things, some of which are planned, it will be done with a kit. You can see here that it is almost pointless to try and present something over the Internet. People easily and some deliberately go off onto something else. But my point here is to mention things and people should be able to figure it out from what is said. I have been advised by customers not to spoon feed people as it takes away from the needed learning process. It is far more important that people learn to think for themselves then just be drones that are programmed. The idea of such forums is to foster that sort of thing rather than merely copying or buying something. This should be a place of learning and practicing science.

The problem here with your requests is that unless you start at the beginning you will not be able do even replicate anything I may show as you will automatically change it because of wrong assumptions. So unless people understand what I wrote yesterday about reactive loops they will never understand Tesla and free energy processes. And as everyone just passed over that then I can't help anyone further. You don't go into surgery without understanding human anatomy first. People are going into these things with under unity perspectives and assumptions and that means their eyes are closed to where the gains are. They will not even look where you tell them to look and they will just disbelieve anything you say. Even for those of us who have experienced this it is still hard not to assume or continue thinking like mainstream practice.

Dear Rick,
Today you are the undisputable master of this thread and I don't  see  this go away for a loooong time  !
100% of the fellas on this forum are learning from you. Some people behave badly, but has not been Jesus in the same situation while savings live and couteracting suffering ? So be our modest Light ans keep the good laughs going on.

I would love to  see you show or describe a few Ateliers around the RICK. Please note i live very far, so can not attend your europe or USA or Canada meetings... :
- how to  set up a stan Meyer fuel cell in place of a capacitor in one of the kit's tanks
- how To set up a small 1v DC (or AC) motor powered by a tank in resonance in the kit,
- how To set up a magnet pushed by the coil in one of the kit's tank, (To recreate an energizer with negative electricity )
- how To light Bulbs and LEDs from one of the resonant tanks (DONE!)
- how to get heat from one of the resonant tanks...
- a practical exercice of impedance matching in one  of the kit's tank (ie  what is that ? How to  do that ?)

...That's the kind of things i would luuuuuve to learn to do from a teacher like You, but too newbie to know. (And  not confident to build a massive HV Don Smith device !)

Please enrich your kit with these Ateliers !!!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 28, 2019, 04:28:11 PM
Rick  Re Ateliers:  I think he means workshop videos. Like your last video.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 04:38:47 PM
Stop being such an insulting *@*(*(@@   Why not show us YOUR OU device.


We all know why and so do you.
Mr king your a young whipper snapper jumping to conclusions and you really don't know anything about me at all ;D

i'm sure You have had some thing working  long before i cottoned on to any of this know how or know nothing  ;D

I might have thought I knew the secret but i'm still experimenting I don't have a device as such! perhaps you do?
a few pages back I showed a device with fan ends a monstrosity of sorts, it can give one pulse per revolution
JB shows that in DVD7  to be honest I hate to see confusion, Since Rick started to help stuff has fallen into place
but I'm sure you know far more than me. I only know what Rick and JB has given away, what else can i tell you.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 05:02:25 PM
AG,
I don't understand any of your points made here to A. Not one thing you say makes any sense here or even resembles the quote you give about grounding. All of Tesla's systems were grounded so what are you talking about?
What i'm saying is how will an earth connected to a sine wave change anything in or on a 'positive electricity' JB says that in countless videos the answer is it wont.
What I couldn't figure out was what is missing from 'negative electricity' ? ? ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 05:18:31 PM
Yes, that is a big discussion many have had over the years. You do not turn it off but gate it the right way to work for you. Or you tap the very high frequency. Or there are other things you can do. It is good to at least start thinking about these things. Once you properly understand what is going on you can design several different kinds of systems. There are many that have been made over hundreds of years...
Further discussion might well be interesting if Rick could explain to relieve my and possibly others confusion
on how a single impulse can be made from a bunch of pure sine waves that are in the RF region rather than the audio
spectrum as it appears to pose no problem, Why not ask the question if one doesn't ask one doesn't learn! if one does ask it's not liked  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 06:27:34 PM
These points are not actually true. I am not being picky but I will point out that:
1. The energy is NOT transferred as people assume. The transmitter does not send out energy that is absorbed into the receiver coils. That is why people wrongly assume that the totally amount of work that can be done is merely less than that transmitting from the transmitter. We don't have electrons coming from the transmitter and being consumed by the receiver coil(s). This is one of the purposes of the kit to realize that isn't the case. Several experiments help people to begin to see this (and this is why people can't evaluate the kit without the kit). However you understand the fluxing from the transmitter (as magnetic waves or capacitive coupling) this signal actually passes beyond the receiver coils which actually can become relay coils (even loaded ones). The primary transmitter's output radiation continues on beyond the receiver coils that are really not receivers of that energy technically speaking, but merely are influenced by this radiation that continues to bass beyond and can influence more distant coils in relation to the square of the distance from the transmitter. Now if the receiver coils merely absorbed the transmission (as can occur in other setups or under other conditions) then it would be true that we would not get the gains we actually get with these demonstrations.
This point shows you how important it is to consider every word people use because one mistake can change everything entirely.

2. The secondary coils, which can be relay coils, will also become transmitters themselves 90 degrees after they are influenced by the primary coil's radiation. Or in the case of other relay coil's radiation. So this is much different than is oversimplified in G's statement or in what is presented in mainstream teaching or with the MIT demonstration in 2007 on resonance inductive coupling. As usual, there is far more going on, and is a lot more involved than these hasty generalizations implied by the word "transferred". The electron spin theory gives the idea that when electrons are magnetically influence and therefore spun that they first give off electrical impulses (thus can power our electrical loads from an inductor) and then on their return spin the give off a magnetic impulse (and thus become a transmitter themselves). This is very important to understand as mainstream theory always disregards half of the actual energy produced. As mentioned, the motor as illustrated in the billions of brushless fans never uses the negative energy produced by the process but only uses the magnetic impulses from the supposed electron spin. And in the example of the buck boost circuit only the electrical impulses from the supposed electron spin are considered and used for a load. Only people like me use both outputs from supposed electron spin so that I use the magnetic and electric in real loads. No one seems to want to even comment about that either. This is the big dirty little secret the college texts keep from students and thus keep the world in ignorance. So in this case we are considering that the supposed receiver coils (which are not technically receivers in the literal sense as they are merely influenced by the radiation) are radiating magnetically 90 degrees after they flux electrically first. And with the transmitter the opposite is the case. When electrons are impulse electrically they first give off magnetic impulses and then 90 degrees later impulse electrically. This is what we do with the motors like the fans that are normally never used in that way (which done simply by moving one diode over and then charging a battery or powering a load without changing the rpm or input energy). These are fundamental considerations. Ignoring these facts will completely change and stunt your results. It leads to counterproductive phasing and poor results. I see no evidence, and manifest disbelief in these things on this thread. That is why I never expected this to go anywhere when people are blindly experimenting without proper understanding.

3. Now if coils can be influenced by radiation from another transmitter, they can also transmit to other coils (like a relay coil) and thus be it's own source charge power input. The local electrons are the source of energy supposedly (and the Aether as the ultimate source), not the original transmitter's electrons. No one supposes the Sun's electrons to travel through space and come to the earth as packets of energy to power solar panels or cause photosynthesis, etc. This is action at a distance merely influencing the local environments to power its own loads.  So even in these closer relationships we still have separate local environments. However, if you go too close as Itsu has done, you then make two or more coils part of the same setup. So in the nearfield you have rather complex relationships, and as you get closer and closer you have to deal with not just the magnetic but the capacitive coupling dynamics. So at best we are speaking in generalities here. The idea of the kit was to get experience with this. After a year of examining people still learn new things from it. But everyone learns that the mainstream oversimplifications made, like G tends to express, are obviously not the case. There is far more going on, even as there are always two types of energy from either magnetic or electrical impulsing. These people will never admit it even though the science is defined and called as electromagnetism  :o ::) :P All they want to do is allow you to only focus on one output when both are available. Thus you pay for half of the energy.

4. So if the secondary coils can be receiver coils that influence other coils, then they can be used to influence the primary coil in the same way. So under the right conditions (phasing and position) you can at least reduce the input power of the primary. And just because someone like Itsu doesn't get the phasing right, or doesn't use variable capacitors to properly tune, does not mean this is not true. It is rather amazing how people prematurely conclude on such things when these basics are not even understood.

5. It has to be remembered that the influence from any transmitter falls under the square laws and therefore drops off at the square of the distance. The waves do not diminish but rather spread out at that rate. So they naturally have less influence upon a coil according to the distance. Ideally we do a Don Smith setup with the secondary within the primary so that all the flux passes through it (and you still have other coils being influenced as we do in the kit). If all the flux or radiation was as these mainstream people suppose in the secondary, like a iron core transformer would do, then no useful radiation would be left to influence other surrounding coils as we do in the kit. But the secondary not only receives all the influence of the primary magnetic fluxing but also each turn multiplies that total influence. This is the key and heart of the Don Smith system, that is also in a very important 1/4 wave relationship as well. But that is too much power to safely promote replication here when people are not even at the beginning of learning this stuff. That is why I don't add that to the kit yet.
Anyway, in order for the kit coils (that are not inside the primary like Don normally did, but which he did in his first model 2 in the book) to effectively power the input in the way mentioned, you have to consider the following. The square laws apply and so only a small portion of the total radiation of either transmitters (primary and secondaries which are out of phase with each other) are influencing each other. Again, all the radiation is not "transferred" as G states and as mainstream portrays it to be. It does not transfer the flux like and iron core transformer, but it goes out in almost all directions (like 70% of total area). It is often portrayed as merely going out of both open ends. But then it is portrayed as merely going to a receiving coil like in the MIT demonstration. Wikipedia then misleads you in their article to suggest that only one coil can receive the flux, etc.
Since only a small influence (angle) affects each other coil then the radiation may not be enough to completely supply each other's energy needs in order to maintain themselves in the way Kron talks about with the network and the transmission line, etc. That is no longer needing additional input. This is why it is easier to do this with additional coils.
You also have to realize that there is also proper phasing relationships. And this is difficult considering that we are dealing with very near field spacing that is way smaller than the even 1/4 wave lengths. We are in the 1Mhz frequencies, so go and look up for yourself how long that is. Again, the transmitter is influencing the secondary coils to become not only source charges themselves with electrical loads, but transmitters of magnetic waves 90 degrees out of phase. So in order to marry these various coils together in harmony you have to first realize this and then position accordingly. So we see here people just approaching all this randomly and therefore there is little hope that people will just stumble upon something. And if they do, they will not be able to quantify anything when they have no idea of why anything happened at all. At best there will just be perplexed faces and hands up in the air responses. Then people will want to immortalize some strange experience. Ah but it gets bumped and they can never get it back again! I have seen this for many years now. Trying to guess with parts and hope for magical results rather than start from the foundations and then make informed moves that always work out.

6. With 1/4 wave or harmonically matched coils we have another level of influence which is not the discussion here.

7. When we have sufficient influence from the primary transmitter (in the case of the regular Don Smith secondary L2 coil we have 100% x each secondary turn), and when we have the right phasing, then we can experience reduction of primary input, and possibly make that reduced to zero, or even go negative as Kron mentioned also. This can be called phase conjugate mirroring. It is not a mere or actual reflection, but a replication of the primary transmission properly speaking. If it was a mere reflection then you would have no additional gains but merely a self-sustaining useless process. This is how all these mainstream people suppose it would be so naturally they have no interest even considering these things. Because to them you only have losses anyway so it could not be even self-sustaining even if you had efficient mirroring. But we see in either resonance tank circuits clear amplifications of either voltage or amperage so they are foolish to ignore such common manifestations of energy gains. Then they have the nerve to draw attention to these tank circuits as if they disprove what they are actually showing  :o That is they say, well how can everyone be familiar with resonant tank circuits and not see this? Well I ask in the same way, how can they ignore have the radiation output with billions of brushless fans around the world for decades? And why do they never push a mechanical load with a pulsed inductor when they only want a electrical output? So in the same way these people deliberately blind themselves and don't even question everyone around them or pay attention to their own primary books that show them these things. It is real insanity to just memorize what teachers tell you and fill in the blanks as they grade you on and never bother to even think about what is implied in the fundamental teachings and meaning of even the word electromagnetism. It is absolute insanity.

You can see how just one word used in this way can mislead everyone and cut everyone off from realizing what is really happening. Energy is not being "transfer"red as is implied. Yes it is merely a signal transfer of energy, but the so-called receiver coil is not receiving the energy from the primary transmitter into itself as they view it. It is an influence for it to charge itself from its own local source. It becomes a source charge, and this is the place G where the gains happen as well. First in the resonance series tank. Then in the replication of the signal in itself from electron spin. Then the parallel tank also has a resonance gain in itself, etc.

8. The last statement below is also wrong in many cases. If you have the coils very closely together you can influence the others in a way that diminishes all the outputs OR MAKES THEM OUTPUT MORE. However, this is not always the case and if we space and tune them in many positions we find that they really don't noticeably influence each other. Again, it depends on spacing and phasing. There are man objectives in the kit, and one of them is to show that they are each independent of each other and can be influenced by the primary fluxing radiation of the transmitter that does not get absorbed into each coil so that it cannot continue on to influence others. So in this way thousands of coils can be influenced by the transmitter while not eating up such signal in the first layers. And you have about 70% of the area around the transmitter that is active. I only showed a small percentage of that area powering coils, and untuned at that. Also ungrounded at that. Also, loads that did not do any frequency reduction at that. And not in quarter wave lengths at that. Etc., etc., etc.

It is not so much of "a slow and arduous process." Once you have an understanding of how these things work then you can proceed with hope and excitement. The sky is literally not the limit. But you have to start first with what I said yesterday. All this talk is meaningless when you assuming that there cannot be any gains anywhere. Start with what I said and first come to grips with more than one closed loop of constant current upon resistive loads. If you can't get past that as some of these guys believe, then there is no discussion at all. Stefan may as well close the forum down then. Again, consider the actual reactive loops within/created in these supposed closed loops in everyday circuits as Walter Lewin pointed out and demonstrated. Once you observe real loads powered (like batteries, capacitors, lights, motors, etc.) then you realize that these reactive loops are additional gains beyond the primary Kirchhoff loop they only measure. Their predetermined boundary conditions don't allow for those loads to exist and therefore they argue in a circle that only the limited loop is to be measured or even to exist.

So this demonstration does not "show the behaviour of magnetically coupled resonant LC circuits"  and " these characteristics are" NOT "fully valid for such setups discussed here" They represent at best only limited possible behavior under limited circumstances. Notice G is all enthusiastic to believe and conclude on such matters even though he has not personally seen any of Itsu's work in the real world. How eager he is to jump upon a result and present it as "fully valid" and as "the behaviour" of such things conveyed in the context of my kit. But this is not actually the truth is it? Itsu has just started and has told his limitations. He is just beginning to work with new ideas. Why has G and others made him the expert? Obviously he does not even claim to be an expert as he is just discovering new things and relationships here. My point in this is to draw attention to how G is once again misleading people here in very subtle ways when he never bothered to answer any of the fundamental questions I asked him. These subtle responses end up misdirecting people back into the mainstream beliefs that necessarily lead to under unity results. He has never explained what basis he has for making that one sentence which gave the impression that he hoped to find some gain out of a circuit one day. Mere lip service to a belief in OU. On the contrary, he has shown that he does not believe that there is any real gain in a resonance tank circuit. And it appears here that he may only believe the energy is transferred from a transmitter into one or all of the receiver coils in the mainstream understanding, in which case would mean that there was no possibility for their to be gain in adding multiple coils. Every statement I have read from him in our interaction suggests that he only believes mainstream views of energy transfer and under unity and all advice and remarks are merely under that umbrella. So why are such people here or why not press them to tell us what they really believe? If OU is impossible then why hide this from us? Some of you know why.

Hi Arne,
It is good you show the behaviour of magnetically coupled resonant LC circuits, these characteristics are fully valid for such setups discussed here. The best energy transfer can happen when all the LC circuits mutually have the critical coupling between any and each LC circuit present in the setup, all tuned to resonance. This situation is very hard to achieve because any adjustment on any of the LC circuits influence all the others, a slow and arduous process.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 06:35:27 PM
Yes PLL system can and is often applied to this. But you have understand the foundations first. Just like with the PLL tesla coils (I have all of them) they have to start off with the right relationships as PLL only works with what it has to work with. This is very important for changing loads and relationships like in Stan's water cell.
Just remember that you are only as good as your foundation and the way you are coming into these things. If you follow G then you will always end up in under unity because you will be limited in your considerations and environment.

Perhaps a kind of PLL system is needed on the big coil to keep it at resonance by automatically moving the frequency.
Thanks,  Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on June 28, 2019, 06:55:52 PM
Hi Rick,
thank you so much for your answer/help and also your comment from yesterday. It was a break through for me. Before I had results but didn't really understand it and not exactly know what to do. It was the missing part for me. Oh my god! Is it really so easy!?!

Very good to hear this from you.
Yes, the key is "balance".
There are bunch of options here, and I leave this for people to learn the full way for themselves. I have shown the basic way that gets people started.
Yes, the object is not to charge the batteries but to keep them basically in the same place so that you don't have to rotate them and then you just have the true self-runner. For people really don't want to mess with batteries anyway. It actually is an pain to have to deal with a charging battery just as much as having to charge up an input battery. So we have to start with a discharged battery on the charge side and a charged battery on the input side. Then they will have their minor rise and drops at start up and then just hold out the same. If you unbalance the load and make it too much you can send back more energy to the front and the input charges up. You can drop the charging rate as well if it becomes unbalanced. Someone was trying to suggest that the battery charging was sometimes discharging. But that never was the case. The charging battery started at low voltage and rose up under charge, and merely dropped a little at times due to specific changes in the tuning. It was always charging. But the object is not to charge that battery but to be merely a potential or more like Tesla's end point "P" in his schematics. A terminal point or capacitance.

It think people will finally get this now. It is a whole different day.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 06:59:52 PM
Well AG, I already gave you a lot of detail about how grounding affects things.
Secondly, I don't know what JB you are talking about because John Bedini certainly talked and we did experiments with grounding in the early years. John even posted much information on Stubblefield. So you look silly now making these statements about JB. It shows you were not around or didn't know John's teaching at all. Maybe you found some quote you misunderstood, or maybe he changed that history as well as he did with the big 1971 lie. But we did even ground the SSG monopole which allowed for gains. This is something I may get back to showing as we did 15 years ago.
Anyway, Bedini has proven to be a liar so nothing he said can be trusted. Obviously many things he said were true, like anyone. But he can no longer be quoted as some authority. What you are doing here is railing upon A like he is a kid, which he isn't actually. You needlessly insult him for merely suggesting to try grounding. You even do it in reference to getting back to Tesla. This shows you have never even read Tesla. I mean, have you ever seen one of his patents or circuits? They are all grounded or implied grounds. Did you not realize that The True Wireless article, which was one of his last major articles, which gives a history of his works and a rejection of the Hertzian system is actually a through the ground transmission. This is grounding in the extreme!!  ::) So now you have lost all credibility here. That was why I was confused. I wondered if it was a mere joke. But then I see your response to A and now to me. You are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into folly. I don't get how you could have said any of those sentences about grounding being nothing, about Tesla, and now about Bedini.
Maybe you are confused about what is positive energy and in relation to oscillating energy that we are dealing with in resonance tank circuits. I don't know but it is a matter of fact that you can have benefits from grounding in these processes. Certain Bedini and Tesla taught that.
Not even sure what you mean by the last question either. Negative electricity is really not something. It is more of a way to try and communicate that energy is converging into a negative resistor along a certain path. It is not traveling down a path like current. That is the theory. Current dissipates along a path and the meter measures the rate of dissipation in A and V and W. But negative processes are not measured as they appear directly from the Aether into the negative resistors without time delay at all, instantly. That is the theory. It would seem like magic to mainstream people who assume it is just current flow. So I guess what is missing from negative electricity is current flow. It is opposite phenomena/characteristics/results. But certainly grounding has a major influence upon such processes.

What i'm saying is how will an earth connected to a sine wave change anything in or on a 'positive electricity' JB says that in countless videos the answer is it wont.
What I couldn't figure out was what is missing from 'negative electricity' ? ? ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 07:11:42 PM
Well AG, I already gave you a lot of detail about how grounding affects things.
Secondly, I don't know what JB you are talking about because John Bedini certainly talked and we did experiments with grounding in the early years. John even posted much information on Stubblefield. So you look silly now making these statements about JB. It shows you were not around or didn't know John's teaching at all. Maybe you found some quote you misunderstood, or maybe he changed that history as well as he did with the big 1971 lie. But we did even ground the SSG monopole which allowed for gains. This is something I may get back to showing as we did 15 years ago.
Anyway, Bedini has proven to be a liar so nothing he said can be trusted. Obviously many things he said were true, like anyone. But he can no longer be quoted as some authority. What you are doing here is railing upon A like he is a kid, which he isn't actually. You needlessly insult him for merely suggesting to try grounding. You even do it in reference to getting back to Tesla. This shows you have never even read Tesla. I mean, have you ever seen one of his patents or circuits? They are all grounded or implied grounds. Did you not realize that The True Wireless article, which was one of his last major articles, which gives a history of his works and a rejection of the Hertzian system is actually a through the ground transmission. This is grounding in the extreme!!  ::) So now you have lost all credibility here. That was why I was confused. I wondered if it was a mere joke. But then I see your response to A and now to me. You are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into folly. I don't get how you could have said any of those sentences about grounding being nothing, about Tesla, and now about Bedini.
Maybe you are confused about what is positive energy and in relation to oscillating energy that we are dealing with in resonance tank circuits. I don't know but it is a matter of fact that you can have benefits from grounding in these processes. Certain Bedini and Tesla taught that.
Not even sure what you mean by the last question either. Negative electricity is really not something. It is more of a way to try and communicate that energy is converging into a negative resistor along a certain path. It is not traveling down a path like current. That is the theory. Current dissipates along a path and the meter measures the rate of dissipation in A and V and W. But negative processes are not measured as they appear directly from the Aether into the negative resistors without time delay at all, instantly. That is the theory. It would seem like magic to mainstream people who assume it is just current flow. So I guess what is missing from negative electricity is current flow. It is opposite phenomena/characteristics/results. But certainly grounding has a major influence upon such processes.
Rick my friend  could you please remove all the pre assumptions you have supposed of me you recognise as insults and please leave me with the facts if you wouldn't mind, if that's not to much trouble or do you do it so you don't have to answer my questions ?
By the way so who is the guy stood behind J Bedini in video 7, he does look alot like your self. Also it's well known good advice not to earth devices such as this type of experimental device in order to avoid lethal shock in some instances.
A word of advice it's not a good idea slagging people off who can no longer defend them self especially if they are deceased.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 28, 2019, 07:35:09 PM
Rick my friend  could you please remove all the pre assumptions you have supposed of me you recognise as insults and please leave me with the facts if you wouldn't mind, if that's not to much trouble or do you do it so you don't have to answer my questions ?
By the way so who is the guy stood behind J Bedini in video 7, he does look alot like your self. Also it's well known good advice not to earth devices such as this type of experimental device in order to avoid lethal shock in some instances.
A word of advice it's not a good idea slagging people off who can no longer defend them self especially if they are deceased.
You obviously have not seen the video.  If you did then you would see his name come up.  For the record it is Rick Friedrich.  Now I know you have never watched video 7  - no wonder you are confused
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 28, 2019, 07:38:09 PM

Hi Rick,


I did read your reply after I said it clicked, I haven't replied yet because I first wanted to be able able apply it on my circuit to see if I've actually reached the moron level ;D .
In an earlier post (quote below) you explained how to power the primary of your wireless kit. Sorry for this stupid question, but some people say series tank when they actually mean a parallel tank, because the coil and capacitor are actually in series closed upon themselves. But just to be sure, did you mean A or B of the attached schematic?


thanks,
Mario

The starting point of the kit is to have a frequency generator send a square wave to a fast mosfet driver. It's output will have the red wire go to the inductor which is in series with a capacitor, whose other leg is attached to the common ground (which is many times earth ground). That is a series tank resonant circuit when tuned to the right frequency.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 07:43:33 PM
You obviously have not seen the video.  If you did then you would see his name come up.  For the record it is Rick Friedrich.  Now I know you have never watched video 7  - no wonder you are confused
Now we are playing kids games games, what is wrong with you don't you want to get a device working ?

Happy now ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 28, 2019, 07:48:29 PM
AG No games from me - just facts.  Try this fact for size. It's a clip from video 7    Try to show some respect to those  who we have on the forum.  Chances like this don't come along very often.. and can easily go way.  Hmmm maybe that's your plan?  or are you just an AI bot?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 08:02:24 PM
PACK IT UP NOW ! your in the uk, what you are doing is illegal !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on June 28, 2019, 08:45:32 PM
   AG:   Well it's official now, you are just a AI bot.  And in the early stages of becoming a full on troll, like me. 
   Welcome to the club...
   Rick, yes, I lied.  I'll be around... no place to go. This forum has been like home to me, so...   However, I do appreciate your various replies to all of us, concerning your ideas.
   And just a reminder, that it's best to keep personal issues, at bay. And focus on the technical aspects.
   I do apologies to you for asking for proof of anything, previously, I'll try to avoid that.   Have a good day.                                NickZ
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 28, 2019, 09:06:55 PM
Showing a still from a video is not illegal  AG.  Troll troll troll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 28, 2019, 09:19:21 PM
INTRODUCING THE MORON LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION..taken from the yahoo group


https://energyevo.com/2015/01/18/updated-compilation-of-important-info-don-smith-shared-to-nuenergy-yahoo-group/ (https://energyevo.com/2015/01/18/updated-compilation-of-important-info-don-smith-shared-to-nuenergy-yahoo-group/)


However I will argue that Don Smith did not  invent the effect.   It was invented by Carlos Benitez. Benitez stated that when pulsing one plate of a capacitor, the other plate automatically charges up from the ground.( Benitez then switches the ground on and off mechanically creating an energy pump.
To the EE's present who have not been taught correctly  -  it is called "Electrostatic induction"  -  Look it up.
It is usually glossed over as  unimportant.  Nothing to see here -  move on (lol).






Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 09:28:49 PM
Showing a still from a video is not illegal  AG.  Troll troll troll
No but Cyber stalking and harassment is when you have bean asked to cease hostilities!
you have been warned.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 09:51:37 PM
You guys might be interested in this John Badini video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4tO0kBOzqk&t=116s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGz4QHJ0e4
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 10:32:49 PM
Haha  ::) I'm not worried about you guys. I know this is also a places to have some fun and not get too serious. My British friend may not agree in relation to that. For me, I call everyone out on things, including myself. I don't worry when people attack or make major mistakes because we can all learn from such things. FYI, I have never talked to a hard skeptic that I talked to for any length of time without them shaking my hand once they got to know me. I always win the debates because winning not concurring but actually making sure we all benefit and improve in the process. And of course I don't debate about things I haven't thoroughly investigated and felt compelled to press. All other things I have everything to learn, even things I have mastered I always have more to learn. And we learn also about human nature. Haha, so even if people hate me they at least find me interesting.  ;D

As for AG, I think he may be a little ambiguous with his words because I am not sure at times the exact meaning. So I don't take the words seriously then. Now it just seems like he's sitting back having a beer and laughing maybe. That could be possible and I leave room for that. Maybe he'll wake up and realize that didn't make sense what I said yesterday. But my last response to him showed that he didn't know Tesla or John at all, or how all this works. And I really didn't expect that from him. Not even sure of what he was exactly saying to me in his last response. Was the questioning about my picture one of sarcasm, or was he asking if I was the same guy? Or was he trying to make a point that because I was beside Bedini that therefore that was a bad thing? I really don't know. People need to be a little more clear because they end up being misunderstood. When people are ambiguous I just ignore what they say because what can I do about? Judge their intentions but what I guess? No. So maybe he is just really sloppy with his words. Certain by insulting A that was not good. What was the point of that?

As for sticking to the tech side, well that really isn't what all this is about. 90-95% of this is psychological, games, fun, diversions, fallacies, assumptions, unverifiable facts, etc.  There is no purely factual context in cyberland. That is why I have burst this bubble of deception. There is no way to prove or disprove OU on the internet. Come to grips with it people. Wow, there should be a big load off people's backs now. All this is just information gathering, and otherwise fun and games. While this can have very serious implications it doesn't have to be boring either. It should be civil but it never has been when there is no moderation. So you make do within that.

Again, I don't worry what people say because I really am not trying to prove anything. No I can point to some things that can prove a point, but they are only in the real world. I point to historical facts that you can verify for yourself. I pointed out DVD7 when I could have kept that to myself. This was a big revelation both in regards to the teaching and the fact that Aaron never mentioned it (especially in the Advanced book advertised on every screen in this forum) and that John is quoted as absolutely contradicting what he published on the front of the book several years later about his big 1971 lie claim. So no one else pointed such significant things out online. And everyone would have been deceived unless I showed this very good and very bad thing from this DVD. So that is now two significant things I have proven by means of the internet, but which merely drew attention to the real world facts that you can all verify for yourselves. So I am proving things to you that are very relevant. I don't do this to gain trust but people trust me for such reasons. And as you say that I do take the time to try and help. I am not emotionally reactionary either. In person you would all give me a hug if you knew me.  :) But online I can be unsparing. You can interpret my words according to the tone you want to hear. But I say many things in jest as you can see and I don't take things as personally as people would think. Even Aaron, I can laugh about his picture of me, and I can still point out some good things he has done. I am not reactional to people. I react to illogic and fallacy. As for motives, who really knows why people say and do what they do? There is no  reason to trust people over the internet. I have probably only met a few of you guys on this thread but I still don't know you. I don't think you even know each other. But you foolishly believe each other so easily, and disbelieve just as much. And I just shake my head  ::)

Anyway, there is nothing more to say. You guys have everything now. If you start with what I wrote yesterday then you can proceed with caution. But if you continue to ignore that and play the chasing after circuits in hope of finding gold game then you are just running around in mainstream circuit loops that you will always pay for. Yes it is addicting to just spend your time making efficiency improvement circuits. It is a hobby that none of you can really justify to your wives. Is it really worth it to hang out for years on forums and have nothing to show for it? I don't have time for that. I've taken time to share all this in hope that it will do someone good. But I must go back to the real world and help real people where I can. So I can't help you guys if you are not willing to read and apply that foundational starting point. It may be too much to expect people to change their foundations and actually do some work rather than just copy what someone else has made in a circuit. I will never do that because I want you guys to really learn how to make all the free energy systems. Just build your house upon the rock and not the sand (which is what you guys are doing, and every year the water washes everything away).

   AG:   Well it's official now, you are just a AI bot.  And in the early stages of becoming a full on troll, like me. 
   Welcome to the club...
   Rick, yes, I lied.  I'll be around... no place to go. This forum has been like home to me, so...   However, I do appreciate your various replies to all of us, concerning your ideas.
   And just a reminder, that it's best to keep personal issues, at bay. And focus on the technical aspects.
   I do apologies to you for asking for proof of anything, previously, I'll try to avoid that.   Have a good day.                                NickZ
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 10:38:36 PM
Haha, I would argue that his writing this was not the best example of talking about being above moron level. He really didn't try too hard to polish his words and I think that besides this examples of his frequent strokes, he really was pushing away the prestige jargon people with his down to earth words. I have carefully analyzed his words more than anyone, and I have a lot of appreciation for him. That is partly because I have replicated his stuff. This is vastly important page here if you don't let the wording stumble you. This is a central theme with Don systems. You will not realize how much until you actually replicate things.
Hey, we are all less than morons. Who do we really think we are anyway?

INTRODUCING THE MORON LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION..taken from the yahoo group


https://energyevo.com/2015/01/18/updated-compilation-of-important-info-don-smith-shared-to-nuenergy-yahoo-group/


However I will argue that Don Smith did not  invent the effect.   It was invented by Carlos Benitez. Benitez stated that when pulsing one plate of a capacitor, the other plate automatically charges up from the ground.( Benitez then switches the ground on and off mechanically creating an energy pump.
To the EE's present who have not been taught correctly  -  it iis called "Electrostatic induction"  -  Look it up.
It is usually glossed over as  unimportant.  Nothing to see here -  move on (lol).
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 10:42:25 PM
But Don didn't say he invented it, just that he got to name it. He did make very specific inventions with this and we should have no problem calling it the DSE. Just like the SSG means something to everyone now and will not go away. Also the Selfish Circuit Loving Paths was created for the same reason. To identify an important idea so that everyone could benefit.

However I will argue that Don Smith did not  invent the effect.   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 28, 2019, 10:52:17 PM
The first video is old news. I have exposed the first part years ago. The second part the guy has no idea what he is talking about. It is a perfect example of a guy who misunderstands the whole thing. Some of these guys are intentionally lying.
The second video is my friend's video and now after watching it to try and determine why you may be mentioning it I see that this is another clear example of Bedini telling more disinformation. I will do a careful review of it later as claiming altitude makes the kind of difference he claims is bogus. This is a very bad claim and is enough of a reason then to distrust anything he would say otherwise. This factually not true. It is true that day and night makes a very slight difference and altitude could make similar differences, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of this kind of motor/energizer.

Anyway, good point even though you didn't say what point. If I get a chance I may go over the other one in detail if people need me to. Let's just say that if it was so clear what he was proving would anyone really dislike it? Although what he did by putting the fake magnet motor first was dishonest because that wasn't a Bedini fan. If you want to make a magnet motor you have to change the circle magnet loop like Howard Johnson did. I had his train for years in that shop and it did do that sort of thing. It is easy to make a magnet motor that does no extra work.

You guys might be interested in this John Badini video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4tO0kBOzqk&t=116s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGz4QHJ0e4
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 28, 2019, 11:50:14 PM
Haha  ::) I'm not worried about you guys. I know this is also a places to have some fun and not get too serious. My British friend may not agree in relation to that. For me, I call everyone out on things, including myself. I don't worry when people attack or make major mistakes because we can all learn from such things. FYI, I have never talked to a hard skeptic that I talked to for any length of time without them shaking my hand once they got to know me. I always win the debates because winning not concurring but actually making sure we all benefit and improve in the process. And of course I don't debate about things I haven't thoroughly investigated and felt compelled to press. All other things I have everything to learn, even things I have mastered I always have more to learn. And we learn also about human nature. Haha, so even if people hate me they at least find me interesting.  ;D

As for AG, I think he may be a little ambiguous with his words because I am not sure at times the exact meaning. So I don't take the words seriously then.   So what about this then What do you make of these kind words then ? and i quote
Offline a.king21  Stop being such an insulting *@*(*(@@   Why not show us YOUR OU device.      Now it just seems like he's sitting back having a beer and laughing maybe. That could be possible and I leave room for that. Maybe he'll wake up and realize that didn't make sense what I said yesterday. But my last response to him showed that he didn't know Tesla or John at all, or how all this works. And I really didn't expect that from him. Not even sure of what he was exactly saying to me in his last response. Was the questioning about my picture one of sarcasm, or was he asking if I was the same guy? Or was he trying to make a point that because I was beside Bedini that therefore that was a bad thing? I really don't know. People need to be a little more clear because they end up being misunderstood. When people are ambiguous I just ignore what they say because what can I do about? Judge their intentions but what I guess? No. So maybe he is just really sloppy with his words. Certain by insulting A that was not good. What was the point of that?

As for sticking to the tech side, well that really isn't what all this is about. 90-95% of this is psychological, games, fun, diversions, fallacies, assumptions, unverifiable facts, etc.  There is no purely factual context in cyberland. That is why I have burst this bubble of deception. There is no way to prove or disprove OU on the internet. Come to grips with it people. Wow, there should be a big load off people's backs now. All this is just information gathering, and otherwise fun and games. While this can have very serious implications it doesn't have to be boring either. It should be civil but it never has been when there is no moderation. So you make do within that.

Again, I don't worry what people say because I really am not trying to prove anything. No I can point to some things that can prove a point, but they are only in the real world.
Strange that profile you invented of me considering I asked you about the difference between positive energy and negative energy is it just the impulses or do the impulses have to be negative with respect to earth on a scope ?
You also referred to a sentence of mine concerning 'A.', later Mr king started trolling my self I assume he made an unintentional connection I was referring to with my self and kids when we installed and buried our ground rod the word paranoia or bipolar ..springs to mind. Re your pic nothing intended I assure you I just don;t have time for double remote meanings, sorry to disappoint but there is no malice a forethought as far as I am concerned,
I point to historical facts that you can verify for yourself. I pointed out DVD7 when I could have kept that to myself. This was a big revelation both in regards to the teaching and the fact that Aaron never mentioned it (especially in the Advanced book advertised on every screen in this forum) and that John is quoted as absolutely contradicting what he published on the front of the book several years later about his big 1971 lie claim. So no one else pointed such significant things out online. And everyone would have been deceived unless I showed this very good and very bad thing from this DVD. So that is now two significant things I have proven by means of the internet, but which merely drew attention to the real world facts that you can all verify for yourselves. So I am proving things to you that are very relevant. I don't do this to gain trust but people trust me for such reasons. And as you say that I do take the time to try and help. I am not emotionally reactionary either. In person you would all give me a hug if you knew me.  :) But online I can be unsparing. You can interpret my words according to the tone you want to hear. But I say many things in jest as you can see and I don't take things as personally as people would think. Even Aaron, I can laugh about his picture of me, and I can still point out some good things he has done. I am not reactional to people. I react to illogic and fallacy. As for motives, who really knows why people say and do what they do? There is no  reason to trust people over the internet. I have probably only met a few of you guys on this thread but I still don't know you. I don't think you even know each other. But you foolishly believe each other so easily, and disbelieve just as much. And I just shake my head  ::)

Anyway, there is nothing more to say. You guys have everything now. If you start with what I wrote yesterday then you can proceed with caution. But if you continue to ignore that and play the chasing after circuits in hope of finding gold game then you are just running around in mainstream circuit loops that you will always pay for. Yes it is addicting to just spend your time making efficiency improvement circuits. It is a hobby that none of you can really justify to your wives. Is it really worth it to hang out for years on forums and have nothing to show for it? I don't have time for that. I've taken time to share all this in hope that it will do someone good. But I must go back to the real world and help real people where I can. So I can't help you guys if you are not willing to read and apply that foundational starting point. It may be too much to expect people to change their foundations and actually do some work rather than just copy what someone else has made in a circuit. I will never do that because I want you guys to really learn how to make all the free energy systems. Just build your house upon the rock and not the sand (which is what you guys are doing, and every year the water washes everything away).
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 29, 2019, 02:26:39 AM
AG,
Ok looking back at that comment I can see this is another case in point that I read it the opposite way than you intended. I thought you were saying JB was saying no grounding. Anyway, the case in point is that you are not taking the time to write clearly. Even in the rest of the statement you made I didn't really understand what you were meaning. We can't be and don't want to be inside your head man!  :o The reason I thought you were speaking against grounding was because of your previous attack against A.King when he just made a small point about grounding. Then you attacked in with a bunch of statements that made no sense. I think you either need to take more time to type a little longer or get some help if you can't see this problem. To say A.king is trolling you also makes no sense. What was that about? You were the one that attacked him for no reason. I just don't get what is going on here.

As for the question, what do you mean by "in respect to the earth on a scope?" Not following here what the question is. Difference between positive and negative energy is it just the impulses? The impulse creates a negative experience prior to the current flow at switch turn on and after switch turn off (which is like another switch on as the inductor becomes a source charge itself). The negative is not the spike but the spike is the result after the event(s). Oh, I thought you were referring to the negative probe and connection to the earth/ground. So maybe you were asking about the scope wave going negative?

Strange that profile you invented of me considering I asked you about the difference between positive energy and negative energy is it just the impulses or do the impulses have to be negative with respect to earth on a scope ?
You also referred to a sentence of mine concerning 'A.', later Mr king started trolling my self I assume he made an unintentional connection I was referring to with my self and kids when we installed and buried our ground rod the word paranoia or bipolar ..springs to mind. Re your pic nothing intended I assure you I just don;t have time for double remote meanings, sorry to disappoint but there is no malice a forethought as far as I am concerned,
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 29, 2019, 03:36:40 AM
AG,
I decided to transcribe part of this video you mentioned. This is a flat out lie John told in 2015 or 2016. Starting at Minute 7:25:

"Your voltage goes, 300 volts, exactly the height of the atmosphere that the coil's at." "So if the coil is at a higher elevation you'll get a" "You'll get a higher voltage. The gradient's different." "I moved it 2300 feet to find out. From sea level." "What is the number of the gradient 150V per meter?" "Yeah, something like that. It's close."

[Problem is that he had just said that he moved it to 2300 feet and it was 300V. If the voltage is 150V per meter for the spike above sea level then 2300 feet (700 meters) would be around 100,000V spike. The sea level would be when he would go twice a year to see his sister in Seattle, and the 2300 feet would be Hayden Idaho where he lived and the shop was. John never went anywhere else and didn't fly after two crashes. The problem with this is that the spike has nothing to do with the altitude as anyone can see. John got 300V spikes in the shop with those machines at 12V input. The spike has to do with the rate of change in the switching as well as the intensity (or amperage) of the impulse. I have made way more of these machines than John has and have run them all over the country and found the spike to be the same at sea level in Hollywood Florida, in Hayden Idaho where he was, in California, Texas, North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana, Chicago, in most US States actually, Canada, Germany, Denmark, England, etc. They all show the same spike that is according to the rate of change. What John is confusing here is coils with antennas above ground. The potential difference between ground and meters above ground can make such difference in voltage. But merely holding a coil above ground and running the circuit above ground is not making a potential difference unless you had an actual connection to the ground to have such a difference. This would almost seem to be an example of John being drunk. But his speech does not indicate this. I cannot explain why he would lie like this. His next reference to Peter continues on this bar talk story telling.]

"And what area had a lot to do with it." "If you go grab Peter Lindemann, and Peter will tell you, we built identical machines. Mine worked, he went up north, his didn't work. He brought his machine back to my place and it worked."

You guys might be interested in this John Badini video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGz4QHJ0e4
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 29, 2019, 03:52:45 AM
Mario,
A series resonant tank circuit is where the capacitor and inductor are in series in the circuit. This is the usual way we run the transmitter because of the gate driver. This is A. B is a parallel resonant tank circuit because the capacitor and inductor are parallel to each other in the circuit. The coil and capacitor are not in series with each other in a parallel tank, they are parallel. These people are confused. It appears also that mainstream understanding of what is happening between these two is mistaken, especially about the dielectric. See Stienmetz on the subject. The misunderstanding results from the inability to account for the actual gain in these tanks.

Hi Rick,


I did read your reply after I said it clicked, I haven't replied yet because I first wanted to be able able apply it on my circuit to see if I've actually reached the moron level ;D .
In an earlier post (quote below) you explained how to power the primary of your wireless kit. Sorry for this stupid question, but some people say series tank when they actually mean a parallel tank, because the coil and capacitor are actually in series closed upon themselves. But just to be sure, did you mean A or B of the attached schematic?


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 29, 2019, 04:19:37 AM
Just found this online.  I should sue the guy for copyright infringement. lol. It's from several years ago.......


Now surely you get it... don't you??


(https://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/dlattach/attach/129271/image// (https://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/dlattach/attach/129271/image//))
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 29, 2019, 04:56:18 AM
AG,
Why did you tell us that we may be interested in the Bedini video and then include a disinfo video before it? Both of these are revealing major lies. One that lies about my fan kit and the otheris  Bedini lying.

Is this inclusion of the first video an attempt to try and discredit me? Your starting the video at 116s shows where the guy is showing the voltage of one coil output of 1-2V. This is normal. This guy is a liar because the circuit does not ever use the coils as generator outputs as that point in the video implies. No one on the forums would even try to say that. Everyone can see a huge spike, but he lies and says it is only 2V output. The output is in relation to the motor action and not a generator action. The electrical impulsing of the coils is what causes the output charging of cap or light or battery. The magnet impulsing of the coils as he shows does not cause the charging, and results only in producing 1-2V. This is what in fact is used to create the trigger coil turn on only. But once the motor starts then the trigger coil in a bifilar arrangement (which is a more advanced option with resulting higher output but more difficult to wind/assemble) becomes a much higher voltage (which is another place where free energy is produced in the circuit--which this video does not do).

Secondly, the cap being charged in the video is also a lie because the kit capacitor charges up to high voltage very fast. And when we pulse the cap we charge the battery about as fast as the input battery discharges. He doesn't show either a battery running the fan or charging. It is impossible for the capacitor to stay at 1V or less. It goes up past 200V very fast. The cap pulser actually pulses the battery about 1V average above battery voltage.

Of course this disinformation agent correctly calculated that people would just trust what he says without verifying anything. So you can see that 6 times as many people liked his fake news video. And this is what happens right here on this forum and all the forums. This is exactly why I say you cannot prove anything over the internet and with video or pictures. So why would someone do this? They knew they were lying and misleading everyone. What does that tell everyone here? Why would someone go to the trouble to try and deceive 4 million people? So why are you promoting this video that is obviously disinformation? Are you trying to discredit my claim about the fan kits or me because I mentioned it? Instead now people can see this is an obvious disinfo video as at least 7600 people could see there. These attacks are old news. I won these debates the first 2 years of doing this and I answered every question and objection. Eventually the skeptics changed their level of objection and requirements and merely insisted that there be at least 3 times the output. So I showed that with bigger batteries being charged and another form of the third stage process. After that we really didn't find anyone disbelieving these claims because thousands of people all around the world were doing this. And the fan kit was so popular several others took the credit for my kit. One student of mine even sells it in violation of my friendship.

This is what I wrote in his comments: "If you look at my actual instructions on this you will see that you did not connect the wires right. Everyone knows that the output will be at least 300V and the capacitor will charge up to high voltage very fast. The battery will also charge up around the rate of the discharging battery. I have swapped the two batteries around for years. You have not even used batteries. This video is a lie therefore."

This setup in this video, which is misrepresented and purposely not showing it running the way it runs, is one of about 5 common ways. The first was to make two coils motor coils and two trigger coils. This is what Bedini did with the tape motor drive which is similar to the brushless fan motors. This was not a good use of the coils. So at first I made the all four of the coils motor coils and I unwound one coil and rewound it bifilar with a smaller trigger wire with it. It was rather hard to do that. Then I had 4 transistors so that the motor was about the same as original instead of wasting the two coils as trigger coils. This gives the true results of my claims just like the other kits with the trigger coil. The third way was to merely replace one motor coil and make it a trigger coil while you had three motor coils with transistors. With all these ways you have to realize that every other coil is reversed from the ones beside it. The guy in the video did not do the proper coil arrangement. The next way is to use the actual circuit and merely change around the one diode and add two diodes on the collector terminals of the two transistors. These go to the charging battery. Now the motor runs exactly like it always runs but charges a battery also. This doesn't give as good results because the rate of change is slow. So the fifth way is to change out the transistors to one mosfet and add the fast gate driver and use the existing hall (which sometimes needs to be replace as it often is a latching hall). Now the circuit is more efficient and the charging is much better, and more like my dualpole energizers. In all these cases the bigger the battery the more the output over time. You can also do the third stage of the Loving Paths process with this as well.

You guys might be interested in this John Badini video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4tO0kBOzqk&t=116s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGz4QHJ0e4
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 29, 2019, 05:01:44 AM
Not following your point here? Get what? that he copied your page or what the circuit is showing?

Just found this online.  I should sue the guy for copyright infringement. lol. It's from several years ago.......
Now surely you get it... don't you??
(https://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/dlattach/attach/129271/image// (https://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/dlattach/attach/129271/image//))
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 29, 2019, 05:27:59 AM
Not following your point here? Get what? that he copied your page or what the circuit is showing?
The copyright is just a joke.  I did this so long ago that I was surprised to find it.
I was not referring to you Rick, just those that do not know about Benitez and his use of the earth grounding.
 Surely people can put my Don Smith post together with the Benitez post and experiment with the components.
 Even Don did not show the final schematic.  He just described it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 29, 2019, 06:01:10 AM
Rick:  I've just looked back at AGs posts.  He started in April 2014 and it seems he was very optimistic then.  He then seemed to follow the ususal "gurus" and it would appear AG became thoroughly annoyed by the time wasting and failed replications - and I believe this has led him into confusion.  I think he is testing you because he is disillusioned - (like many others).
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 29, 2019, 09:15:21 AM
AG,
Ok looking back at that comment I can see this is another case in point that I read it the opposite way than you intended. I thought you were saying JB was saying no grounding. Anyway, the case in point is that you are not taking the time to write clearly. Even in the rest of the statement you made I didn't really understand what you were meaning. We can't be and don't want to be inside your head man!  :o The reason I thought you were speaking against grounding was because of your previous attack against A.King when he just made a small point about grounding. Then you attacked in with a bunch of statements that made no sense. I think you either need to take more time to type a little longer or get some help if you can't see this problem. To say A.king is trolling you also makes no sense. What was that about? You were the one that attacked him for no reason. I just don't get what is going on here.Struth talk about paranoia your both very hard work, read A.kings posts to me ! I don't mention A. king in connection of any earth directly WHATSOEVER  in the context as your suggesting. If you want to profile me your not very good at it. As I said I asked you a question AND you still haven't answered it yet.

As for the question, what do you mean by "in respect to the earth on a scope?" ( the zero line goes below zero assuming EARTH is connected to this line) J Bedini refers to it in the no 7 video when he is scoping the wave form the black odd looking square looking wheel and i think your stood behind him as in a.kings photo ) The scope shot clearly shows a ground Zero line with the impulses going negative as spikes below it.
Not following here what the question is. Difference between positive and negative energy is it just the impulses? The impulse creates a negative experience prior to the current flow at switch turn on and after switch turn off (which is like another switch on as the inductor becomes a source charge itself). The negative is not the spike but the spike is the result after the event(s). Oh, I thought you were referring to the negative probe and connection to the earth/ground. So maybe you were asking about the scope wave going negative? Yes
Hmm it's a worry what I mean by confusion is this >should I be asking this stuff, you had better let me know and I can erase it  8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 29, 2019, 09:37:42 AM
Rick:  I've just looked back at AGs posts.  He started in April 2014 and it seems he was very optimistic then.  He then seemed to follow the ususal "gurus" and it would appear AG became thoroughly annoyed by the time wasting and failed replications - and I believe this has led him into confusion.  I think he is testing you because he is disillusioned - (like many others).
Wrong !  I don't get disillusioned I get optimistic  don't read into what i'm not saying I'm merely asking Rick about the impulse it appears to be the key is it going negative below the earth line hundreds of volts ?  or what and whats it's width in micro or nano seconds or does it depend on the frequency relationship ? 
If you don't want to discuss it that's ok, after all that's been said and done.

Many thanks AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 29, 2019, 09:57:54 AM
Not following your point here? Get what? that he copied your page or what the circuit is showing?
It's difficult to comprehend this page for me as it's in dead small print and it's blurry and are the parallel looking resisters actually a pair of coil windings and are the interlocking E block be a battery or a capacitor ?
I needs some work spending on it to bring it up to date me thinks. Anyway thanks for posting the circuit.
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 29, 2019, 11:46:30 AM
AG,
Why did you tell us that we may be interested in the Bedini video and then include a disinfo video before it? Both of these are revealing major lies. BS that's a lie in it self  I could equally say your stealing the innocence from the sincerity the links were given to the thread, works both ways! !One that lies about my fan kit and the other is Bedini lying.is he, how would we know that ?  Those are very strong accusations that are insulting and aggressively abusive! any one looking at both circuits would consider they were identical and you keep saying nothing can be proved on here so whats the problem and where do i say as fact what your implying, calm down and relax not every one is out to get you.
 you should count your blessings not every one can drink alcohol beverages as you previously suggested  :'(
Is this inclusion of the first video an attempt to try and discredit me? No of course not  it was for your amusement only Your starting the video at 116s shows where the guy is showing the voltage of one coil output of 1-2V. This is normal. This guy is a liar because the circuit does not ever use the coils as generator outputs as that point in the video implies. No one on the forums would even try to say that. Everyone can see a huge spike, but he lies and says it is only 2V output. The output is in relation to the motor action and not a generator action. The electrical impulsing of the coils is what causes the output charging of cap or light or battery. The magnet impulsing of the coils as he shows does not cause the charging, and results only in producing 1-2V. This is what in fact is used to create the trigger coil turn on only. But once the motor starts then the trigger coil in a bifilar arrangement (which is a more advanced option with resulting higher output but more difficult to wind/assemble) becomes a much higher voltage (which is another place where free energy is produced in the circuit--which this video does not do).
The Great Scott guy he is quite a character along with others like that Australian guy who poo poo's zero point energy, but in saying that since you appear to be the be the only guy on here who is prepared to what looks like being prepared to rip things apart and state whats wrong with them whats wrong with letting you rip apart and explain whats wrong with stuff ? It's how we all can learn from you! !

Secondly, the cap being charged in the video is also a lie because the kit capacitor charges up to high voltage very fast. And when we pulse the cap we charge the battery about as fast as the input battery discharges. He doesn't show either a battery running the fan or charging. It is impossible for the capacitor to stay at 1V or less. It goes up past 200V very fast. The cap pulser actually pulses the battery about 1V average above battery voltage.

Of course this disinformation agent correctly calculated that people would just trust what he says without verifying anything. So you can see that 6 times as many people liked his fake news video. And this is what happens right here on this forum and all the forums. This is exactly why I say you cannot prove anything over the internet and with video or pictures. So why would someone do this? They knew they were lying and misleading everyone. What does that tell everyone here? Why would someone go to the trouble to try and deceive 4 million people? So why are you promoting this video that is obviously disinformation? Are you trying to discredit my claim about the fan kits or me because I mentioned it? Instead now people can see this is an obvious disinfo video as at least 7600 people could see there. These attacks are old news. I won these debates the first 2 years of doing this and I answered every question and objection. Eventually the skeptics changed their level of objection and requirements and merely insisted that there be at least 3 times the output. So I showed that with bigger batteries being charged and another form of the third stage process. After that we really didn't find anyone disbelieving these claims because thousands of people all around the world were doing this. And the fan kit was so popular several others took the credit for my kit. One student of mine even sells it in violation of my friendship.

This is what I wrote in his comments: "If you look at my actual instructions on this you will see that you did not connect the wires right. Everyone knows that the output will be at least 300V and the capacitor will charge up to high voltage very fast. The battery will also charge up around the rate of the discharging battery. I have swapped the two batteries around for years. You have not even used batteries. This video is a lie therefore."

This setup in this video, which is misrepresented and purposely not showing it running the way it runs, is one of about 5 common ways. The first was to make two coils motor coils and two trigger coils. This is what Bedini did with the tape motor drive which is similar to the brushless fan motors. This was not a good use of the coils. So at first I made the all four of the coils motor coils and I unwound one coil and rewound it bifilar with a smaller trigger wire with it. It was rather hard to do that. Then I had 4 transistors so that the motor was about the same as original instead of wasting the two coils as trigger coils. This gives the true results of my claims just like the other kits with the trigger coil. The third way was to merely replace one motor coil and make it a trigger coil while you had three motor coils with transistors. With all these ways you have to realize that every other coil is reversed from the ones beside it. The guy in the video did not do the proper coil arrangement. The next way is to use the actual circuit and merely change around the one diode and add two diodes on the collector terminals of the two transistors. These go to the charging battery. Now the motor runs exactly like it always runs but charges a battery also. This doesn't give as good results because the rate of change is slow. So the fifth way is to change out the transistors to one mosfet and add the fast gate driver and use the existing hall (which sometimes needs to be replace as it often is a latching hall). Now the circuit is more efficient and the charging is much better, and more like my dualpole energizers. In all these cases the bigger the battery the more the output over time. You can also do the third stage of the Loving Paths process with this as well.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 29, 2019, 01:37:53 PM
AG the resistor type lines in the Benitez circuit is the way they showed transformers in those days. Also they sometimes meant induction coils and did not show the interrupter which is an automatic mechanical on-off switch similar to the old double bell circuit which used two coils as electromagnets and switched each coil on and off automatically using a mechanical switching mechanism.
The point is you have to read and understand the patent.  It was granted and in those days you had to show a working model.
That is why Rick is going to do a Benitez kit I think.
AG: Just look at Rick's videos and you will get it.  He is the most honest contributor ever.
Negative engineering: Rick means use the spike.
The spike can create a negative resistor.


A negative resistor can be a coil, a battery or a capacitor. Or a combination of RLC circuits. Hence the confusion.
The spike can go negative but it doesn't matter.  Use rectification.
It is called  negative engineering because energy enters the circuit rather than the other way round - as in closed loop systems.
So if you use the spike in combination with resonance in combination with earth grounding Don Smith style you'll get there.
A further point.   Capacitor pulsing and battery pulsing can go ou without input after conditioning.  This means you have to pulse the devices negatively for over 12 hours.  Then the capacitor or battery will self charge fo a time - maybe 5 minutes or so.


I am sure if I have said anything wrong then Rick will correct me.





Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 29, 2019, 04:02:11 PM
AG,
Let's go back to your confusion here. In https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535788/#msg535788 A.King suggested the following:
"Itsu:  Try experimenting with an earth ground."
Now what was wrong with him suggesting that? Notice how you respond in:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535793/#msg535793
You quote this one line here and write:
"Yes we all like to play in the sand with our little one's, wile we have the time here.
but that's not the trick 'really' is it! You talk about DVD7 energy from vacuum series.
And yet you play with squiggly lines in a wire you call a sine wave, and i'm the idiot wasting space.
I ask you this, how the … did tesla get access to HF ? cus your ignoring something he did your not.
You need to get back the Tesla's basics.
AG"

You seem to forget how this whole confusion from you started here. It was because you wrote this above in response to A.King's simple suggestion to Itsu to experiment with an earth ground. Maybe you were thinking you were responding to some other statement of his??? It just doesn't make any sense, either this initial response or all the others after, like below. Let's look at this in order.
1. What does "play in the sand" have to do with earth ground suggestion?
2. What's "not the trick"? What trick? No one is saying grounding is a trick. But it does make a difference.
3. Why bring up DVD7 here when you are replying to this grounding suggestion?
4. What "squiggly lines in a wire you call a sine wave"? What does that have to do with grounding statement? What are you referring to? Some previous posting of A.King's? I don't see the point here?
5. What do you mean by your insult to A.King: "and i'm the idiot wasting space"? If you are making no connections with your points in relation to your quote you are supposed to be replying to then it would be wasting space on this forum. If we can't understand you because you don't take the time to make clear sentences with clear meanings then what is the point when we can't understand this confusion. And why the insult here?
6. Then you go on to another unconnected aggressive question: "how the … did tesla get access to HF"? What does that question have to do with suggesting grounding? And to answer the question he made hf motors/generators and he also used oscillation circuits with resonance.
7. Then you mutter something further as if you are trying to prove an unintelligible point: "cus your ignoring something he did your not." What do you even mean here? Can you take the time to properly make sentences? What does suggesting grounding have to do with this? What was A.King ignoring? Are you suggesting that Tesla had no high frequency? What are you talking about? This is all very confusing.
8. Then you finish this strange unconnected response with: "You need to get back the Tesla's basics." What Tesla basics? He suggested grounding and because of that you say this. What do you mean? Tesla basics includes grounding. Are you not aware of that? You are either very confused or do not know Tesla basics. I just don't understand anything you wrote in this initial post that was a response.

Then you continue with a slew of comments interjected within quotations from me, of which we really don't have time to quote all of them. But here is one of the last ones where you act like you never said anything like you did in this initial response about A.King suggesting grounding:

Rick is quoted:
"AG,
Ok looking back at that comment I can see this is another case in point that I read it the opposite way than you intended. I thought you were saying JB was saying no grounding. Anyway, the case in point is that you are not taking the time to write clearly. Even in the rest of the statement you made I didn't really understand what you were meaning. We can't be and don't want to be inside your head man!   The reason I thought you were speaking against grounding was because of your previous attack against A.King when he just made a small point about grounding. Then you attacked in with a bunch of statements that made no sense. I think you either need to take more time to type a little longer or get some help if you can't see this problem. To say A.king is trolling you also makes no sense. What was that about? You were the one that attacked him for no reason. I just don't get what is going on here."

AG you later respond within the quote with more confusion that doesn't address my points here. What on earth do these first words mean? Why do you deny the above context of earth/grounding? Profile you??? You deny your very quoted response to a simple suggestion to try grounding! Then you divert from this to say you asked a question:
"Struth talk about paranoia your both very hard work, read A.kings posts to me ! I don't mention A. king in connection of any earth directly WHATSOEVER  in the context as your suggesting. If you want to profile me your not very good at it. As I said I asked you a question AND you still haven't answered it yet."

AG then you respond outside the quote with more unclear words:
"Hmm it's a worry what I mean by confusion is this >should I be asking this stuff, you had better let me know and I can erase it  8)"

Maybe you are using a translator and/or not really understanding what we are saying and the words are just not being conveyed. I don't see anyone else having so much trouble connecting points and saying things that can't be understood on this thread. Like what does this mean: "Hmm it's a worry what I mean by confusion is this"? You didn't ask a question, you made a bunch of statements that didn't have any appearance to the initial suggestion to try grounding. Some of which was insulting. Then there was an unclear question about Tesla followed by getting back to Tesla basics. And when I mentioned this you then respond several times with more unclear statements in the form of denials which were not making sense.

As you can see, I have no problem answering questions if I know what you are asking. But you need to explain what this first response to A.King meant? Can you address each of my points above? Otherwise it is just confusion and does no one any good here. Can you see that you did actually respond to A.King's suggestion about grounding? Even if you don't remember doing that, can you click the link above and go there and read your words and your quote of his words that were appropriate? You deny this and then deny that you insulted him. Then you say he is trolling you. And now you deflect this point as if all you were doing was asking a question, and that I am supposedly not answering! How could I even responde to something that wasn't even asked in a way that could be understood??? Perhaps you are thinking you are saying or reading things that you are not? I've gone over all the exchanges to make sure I didn't miss something here and I can't make sense of any of it. Either there is a translation problem because you do not speak English as your native language (which is the case with some people here and that is fine), or you just don't care to type carefully enough to be understood, and/or you don't bother to pay attention to what you are replying to or remember what you wrote, or you have some issues you need help with, or this is an attempt to create a needless controversy for no reason. Can you take the time to clear this all up. What is going on here AG? I'll get to your last question after you explain why all this above has happened?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 29, 2019, 05:25:00 PM
Ok, to attempt to answer AG's question that is a separate thing from all the confusion generated by his words that I can't understand, I will quote here the first question that I can make some sense of:

In https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535818/#msg535818
AG quotes me and replies as follows:
Rick is quoted as:
"AG,
I don't understand any of your points made here to A. Not one thing you say makes any sense here or even resembles the quote you give about grounding. All of Tesla's systems were grounded so what are you talking about?"

AG replies:
"What i'm saying is how will an earth connected to a sine wave change anything in or on a 'positive electricity' JB says that in countless videos the answer is it wont.
What I couldn't figure out was what is missing from 'negative electricity' ? ? ?"

So I (Rick) reply now in part and more fully after the next quote. I have already written a lot on this within the last few days. We are not talking about being connected to a sine wave. Although it is almost impossible to know the context of what you say in all these exchanges as you don't take the time make clear or connected statements. Anyway, we are dealing with oscillatory energy gains within a resonance tank circuit. Resonance draws in more electrons in from the local environment. From the air and surrounding collector objects, etc. The ground is the biggest contributor of electrons so this is one reason why gains and the beneficial resonance processes increase with ground connections done the right way. The earth is also a capacitance and sink. There are other things to consider as well but that is dealing with other free energy systems we are not talking about here. The one electron theory is that as electrons are spun by either magnetic or electric impulsing they give off both magnetic and electric impulses out of phase. So in an osciallating resonant tank circuit they are being spun much more and thus the gains result from a simple process that requires very little energy to trigger. As resonance is attractive like a magnet, more electrons get sucked into the environment and correspondingly get spun as well. Thus more resulting magnetic and electric impulsing occurs. Whether there is such a thing as an electron, or whether the electron pairs separate and come back together as the theory suggests, the model works and the resulting phenomena can be predictable and repeated. And as I warned, without grounding in these experiments we expose ourselves to electron depletion as we become somewhat connected to the air ground around these rf systems and as such become electron donators. This is a big problem in our new rf world where we are isolated from the ground with our rubber shoes. We are robbed of electrons that are needed for our vitality, and we no longer can recharge from the ground as we always did before rubber shoes were invented...

In the following post I am replying to:
You continue quoting me as asking:
As for the question, what do you mean by "in respect to the earth on a scope?"

Then you, AG state:
"( the zero line goes below zero assuming EARTH is connected to this line) J Bedini refers to it in the no 7 video when he is scoping the wave form the black odd looking square looking wheel and i think your stood behind him as in a.kings photo ) The scope shot clearly shows a ground Zero line with the impulses going negative as spikes below it."

Then you continue quoting me as:
"Not following here what the question is. Difference between positive and negative energy is it just the impulses? The impulse creates a negative experience prior to the current flow at switch turn on and after switch turn off (which is like another switch on as the inductor becomes a source charge itself). The negative is not the spike but the spike is the result after the event(s). Oh, I thought you were referring to the negative probe and connection to the earth/ground. So maybe you were asking about the scope wave going negative?"

Then you, AG respond with:
"Yes"
Followed outside the quote with:
"Hmm it's a worry what I mean by confusion is this >should I be asking this stuff, you had better let me know and I can erase it  8)"

The whole use of the word "earth" by you has been very confusing as I wrote last post. You need to properly communicate otherwise there is no purpose to any of this. Please answer that post before we move on with this subject. What is happening with this confusion is equivocation between the words earth and zero line on the scope. And somehow you forgot/denied the initial context of A.King's suggestion to try and earth grounding, and you then appear to ask a later question about the scope wave going negative or below the zero line. Then it appears here that you are specifying a connection between connecting to the earth ground and the wave going below zero. This is not what I am or Bedini was saying. Going negative or below zero has nothing to do with connecting to earth ground. Hopefully that answers your question if that was really the question. But further, the zero line on a scope is not a reference to ground. Voltages are potential measurements, not references to above or below ground. You can have actual voltage or potential differences above or below ground, but not in reference to these motors. Now you are confused by Bedini in relation to the video Jin took a few years ago at Aaron's meeting where Bedini is caught in another lie in this respect. Bedini says, as I quoted last night in the post on that subject, that the spike will be accordingly higher or lower based on the altitude of the motor. This is not a mistake but an outright lie from Bedini who indeed spoke the truth in the DVD7 and many other places showing that the voltage of the scope reading will be determined by the rate of change, turns of the inductor, and amperage being impulse on the motor side of the system. The only way altitude would have anything to do with it would be if the motor was very high above the ground and had a long wire connected to the ground where there could be a potential difference. Still it would not even there change the spike at that place in the circuit. This was a complete confusion of two different things altogether. And he wasn't even talking about the potentials from a high antenna. Don Smith talked about that and that was an early system he had where he tapped the potential difference between a lower point and a higher point with a long wire, etc. But Bedini was saying that merely being a higher altitude with the ground being higher as well, resulted in having the spike being 150V higher per meter of altitude above sea level. But that would mean he would have 100,000V spike readings, which he did not ever with those motors. We can in fact get such high spikes if we have a fast enough rate of change, but nothing to do with altitude. So this was not even nonsense but flat out lying. This confused my friend who filmed it and apparently AG who mentioned the video link yesterday where John said this. I missed that statement in that video because it was after the years I was involved with Bedini.

Anyway, I can see where some of the confusion has come from here. Not from DVD7 at all, which was the best thing Bedini gave everyone (and if he only did that DVD and nothing else before or after then we would all be a lot better off at this time).

The black square looking thing is the window motor that we built prior to that DVD7 video. This was the result of one of my private forums on that motor. The emails have been posted on the internet on this or another forum. There are some important things mentioned there, one of them being the first time John started the lie about having first made the window motor and publishing a mature book on the subject in 1971 (in truth 20 years prior to when he actually made contents). Ironically he says at the end of the DVD7 (the 30 minute mark of the second section) to Tony (who published that lie right on the front cover and copyright page) that the window motor came from, as a result of, his first 1984 book on free energy, Bedini's Free Energy Generator (which was republished in behind that faked date publication of the window motor). So at the same time he is telling Tony in the video the motor came from his beginning work in 1984, he is telling us on the forum that it came from 1971 (some years before Newman made it). At some point he pushes this on Tony and we both don't remember the statement in the video contradicting this. No one caught this major contradiction until I finally got around watching it a few weeks ago.

So we see here the importance of focusing on history and historical accuracy. This is what I have to deal with day to day with thousands of people doing free energy research. Countless people are stumbled by this biggest name in free energy research. This is not a personal matter for me, but here again we can see confusion people have because of major lies being told by these big names. The problem is that Bedini's influence will never go away, and he did say a lot of important things. So hopefully this clears up at least a few points.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 29, 2019, 05:48:56 PM
NO Comment
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 29, 2019, 06:19:29 PM
Hi Rick,


ok, we are clear on the series/parallel issue. I have done many circuits with impulses and parallel resonant tanks, with series arrangements only with ac. The parallel setup is very easy to understand once one looks at all the energy exchange sequences between cap and coil. The series arrangement with pulsing is a bit more difficult to understand. I supposed since you called it zero voltage process, your arrangement on the SG output is a series arrangement, since across the series arrangement there's no voltage to measure (due to 180 degrees cancelling effect). After trying that on the circuit I'm not so sure anymore if that's what you're doing. Inserting a parallel tank on the output is very easy, but why would that be zero voltage?


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 29, 2019, 07:35:49 PM
Mario,
Yes you will find a big difference between driving the tanks with sine wave and with impulses. This is what Tesla explained. And yet the same input energy is used to do both. So this is a nonlinear experience in reference to gains. The regular gains from impulsing or oscillatory energy, not AC or DC.

The zero voltage is merely what a regular volt meter shows. There is still voltage shown on a scope as shown in the picture given in the video description if you haven't seen that. I'm not making that point as an important deal any more than saying that this is what you are after when doing this. So it is a way of seeing if you got it right. I have only demonstrated the basic level to the public showing the voltage to be as low as 0.01V on the AC and DC settings. I am not making a no voltage claim as it is merely in reference to the regular meters. And that whole subject is another matter. I will only say so much as I am not planning to give my arrangements in the box. I am only showing the basic level of doing this, which in fact can multiply this out many times nevertheless. Because that is all what people need to power all of their needs. But the perfect way ends up crossing a line and I am not going to do that. For my students and customers who want these as products I am saying here that I will not be making modules for the public along these lines. I will only provide parts for people to do the basic process which is good enough. So this leaves everyone with homework to do. You will need to read Tesla as I mentioned, and do basic calculations, and experiment. Obviously some students have figured this out as I have shown the first one. This is the kind of thing this thread requests. Just because the perfect ideal system is not revealed with specific part numbers and exact specifications does not mean that I haven't revealed it to you guys on this thread. People can read what I have written or merely skim over it. My students are reading every word even though they are not engaging here. So I am not really writing all this for the few people commenting here but for everyone who is wanting to learn these things, including all who come later. I will be gathering all these into one place and hopefully give some organization to it. I'll show that with the next video.

As for series, let me say again, my hint over the last few years in giving Kron's last diagram in the relevant article he wrote was to show this beyond a one wire path, and rather a 3D network of branches. So here I am showing everyone the means how to do that. And I am not going to repeat that. People can go back and reread what I said about Tesla. So we can go off into all sorts of directions once we understand how Tesla's processes work (which are totally opposite to mainstream methods). We can even do that at the basic level.

Even though I am revealing the perfect system here, but not giving specific part numbers or specifications, I still am fully revealing the basic system which is not only an OU system but also is a multiplier as well. I am doing this in two different but similar ways. One with the motor or solid state arrangement using relatively low frequencies, and the other with the hf resonance kit. For the kit shows the perfect system if you are a good student and do your homework. Anyone carefully working through it will realize it. So I have given several ways to experience unlimited additions to OU systems besides revealing the essential themes and associated important points on how almost all OU systems work (which is also in the upcoming Free Energy Cheat Sheet). And with that said and done, there is nothing left to do then just helping people see this.

You will have to answer the why there is a zero voltage yourself. I have covered that in the original Selfish Circuits or Loving Giving Paths video in that series (the video that you first see on my youtube channel). Remember, everything has to be in balance. All this requires a completely different way of looking at things. You cannot do this with mainstream beliefs and practices. It's an aha experience. Embracing the truths of the themes is the first condition, then you can apply some of the ordinary math to deal with the specifications.

Hi Rick,
ok, we are clear on the series/parallel issue. I have done many circuits with impulses and parallel resonant tanks, with series arrangements only with ac. The parallel setup is very easy to understand once one looks at all the energy exchange sequences between cap and coil. The series arrangement with pulsing is a bit more difficult to understand. I supposed since you called it zero voltage process, your arrangement on the SG output is a series arrangement, since across the series arrangement there's no voltage to measure (due to 180 degrees cancelling effect). After trying that on the circuit I'm not so sure anymore if that's what you're doing. Inserting a parallel tank on the output is very easy, but why would that be zero voltage?
thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 29, 2019, 09:04:32 PM
ok, we are clear on the series/parallel issue.

Hi, Mario.

Now, when it is clear to you, can you draw how system looks like.
I've been trying to picture it from the words and it is not clear for me.
And it will remove confusion from the others, including me, about what are you exactly talking.

Thanks!

------------------------------

Rick,

As I said before, don't pay attention to attacking, which you did and I am glad, so now you speak normally without anger.
People who "attack" don't want to hurt you, it is just difference in view and opinion.
Lots of people here were mislead in the past, with 1000+ systems which did not work and they just wasted money and time chasing ghosts.
So, it is normal that lots of them have a hard time to believe again and ask for a prove, which is normal reaction.
You can not blame them for that.
That's why I need Hoopy and Itsu just as I need you.
I need someone to put me on the ground when I am lost and can not explain something.
It saves me a lot of time of benching in vain.

Hope you understand? No need to reply and make things worse! Just my opinion, which is right, no matter what you say or anybody else.


Good work!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 29, 2019, 09:50:13 PM
Have you been on here and seen this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Flj6i0zQ-7&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on June 29, 2019, 10:12:05 PM
I saw this before.

I had subscription on Master Ivo's channel.
He is good and trying to connect the dots.
There is also Rick comment below, supporting Ivo's effort.

Nice
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 29, 2019, 10:47:09 PM
Have you been on here and seen this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Flj1i0zQ-8&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Flj1i0zQ-8&feature=youtu.be)
It is worth studying:  Here is Rick's response to that video on the site.




Rick Friedrich[]1 month ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Flj1i0zQ-8&lc=UgzGicWCI2wDnNoyugt4AaABAg)
Ivo, nice efforts. Of course this is not new and has been done in many ways over the years I've been around. What I want to point out is the context of the wrongly called Hairpin circuit. While the double capacitor arrangement is vastly important, which Don Smith used very successfully (even calling it the Don Smith Effect), this Tesla circuit was in the context of Impedance. So I have called it the Tesla Impedance Circuit. Notice the only point he was making: "IMPEDANCE PHENOMENA  Among the various current phenomena observed, perhaps the most interesting are those of impedance presented by conductors to currents varying at a rapid rate.  In my first paper before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, I have described a few striking observations of this kind.  Thus I showed that when such currents or sudden discharges are passed through a thick metal bar there may be points on the bar only a few inches apart, which have a sufficient potential difference between them to maintain at bright incandescence an ordinary filament lamp. I have also described the curious behavior of rarefied gas surrounding a conductor, due to such sudden rushes of current." Notice it is the rate of change that is the essential thing (all circuits always in resonance as well). The faster the rate of change the higher the output you will get. Therefore I have used very fast gate drivers in my motor circuits and even in my resonance kit you can see the voltage on the transmitter climb from 250V with the frequency generator square wave to 1300V when we add the gate driver. Tesla said he was able to produce hundreds of millions of HP when discharging capacitors so suddenly. BTW, you can also add more than bifilar windings to the flat coils for even more gains. Key free energy points are Resonance, fast rate of change, high voltage, high frequency in open environments.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 29, 2019, 11:39:31 PM
Rick,


I don't want parts numbers, I want to understand the principle. I want to see a basic schematic, then I can understand how it's supposed to work. I find it confusing the way you present things. In b. Tesla has a series arrangement which is not in the one wire but parallel to it (longitudinal). Kron shows parallel arrangements, not in a one wire but between a potential source and each arrangement separated by a coil. What is your setup? I mean the one that is not perfect but works. Is it parallel or series? Series I have tried on the solid state SG output and can't see how it would work. Inserting a parallel arrangement instead is very easy to get tuned. Is this what you're doing? Although I can't see how you would get 0 voltage across a load. What do you see on the scope? Pulses? From the video I can't understand why it would show 0 volts. I know across a SERIES arrangement you read 0 volts, but a series arrangement doesn't seem to work on the SG output.
Please do not play the game of I know it all and you guys are never gonna find out. I've spent over 10 years of efforts, time, money and discipline in this quest and I'm sick and tired of people dangling the carrot in front of others. I was just about to quit it all and definitely, when I by accident stumbled upon this thread. I don't want to be spoon fed, I don't want a parts list. What do you want?? Do you REALLY want to share something or just amuse yourself watching us? Why not show a simple basic schematic with no values, just the principle, instead of dozens of long posts, do you want to teach us the method OR NOT? Do you want to change the world? I do, it's about time!


Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 30, 2019, 12:49:01 AM
Hi W,
Let's get some things straight. I don't view people attacking me as much as people attacking ideas. Some of these people are only pretending to attack and disbelieve these things merely to get more information out of people. This is what a troll does. There are mean and also nice trolls, for they do whatever works best to complete their mission. You cannot assume anyone is who they claim to be as some are nice and supportive for a long time as part of their cover. Call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but I have seen this for years and very close up. I have even been invited by some bigger names in free energy into occultic covens where they do black magic. You all know I have many stories I can share about many people and things like this.

What you are addressing actually shows how naïve you (who are not part of the control/suppression people) have been in merely assuming that people are who they say they are and that their claims are also true. So you just have proved my point by reference to all the loss and disillusionment of many people. But this forum is only a small slice of the free energy community of which I converse with from day to day. I have conversed with thousands of people through email, phone and in person who have been so burned in these ways. So now you may be able to get my point that prevents this from continuing. And that is by bringing to everyone's attention that you cannot prove anything over the internet. That is not just referring to people's claims, but to people's motives and testing, etc. I have had many nice people, for example, in my forums contributing only to be revealed to be a troll and sophisticated disrupter. One method was simply to drown out an important posting with useless noise right after I posted something. So create another meaningless conversation to detract from everyone noticing what is far more important. Very effective tool. But I know of hundreds of such tactics that have been used. Some of them are being used right here right now. It is also in the way of whatever it take to create doubt no matter how ridiculous. And these suggestions may transfer over to non-trolls who spread such doubt as well so it is not always easy to tell who is who. For example, suggesting that the negatively charged battery is merely consuming the battery so that it becomes ruined once it is consumed. That is that any gains are merely chemical reactions like using coils as battery cells until the chemical no longer gives power. This was a persuasive argument that would be very effective to dissuade people from even trying to experiment. Or the 4 million view video yesterday that pretends to build and demonstrate my fan kit and actually fake it and the results. The vast majority of viewers now conclude there is nothing at all to this even though my detailed short videos show otherwise and only get a few thousand views. As I said, this is all a psychological war against all that is good in our culture (so not just in this science but all sciences and all aspects of our culture). You don't have to disprove anything that is real. All you have to do is wedge the right doubt with lies and most people will believe. Aaron did this with his front page as I showed. It worked just as he calculated. It doesn't matter that a few people will realize it is a lie, because generally people do not care about the true in anything. They are just along for the feelings of the impression of the moment. They will fall for all the fallacies because they are not trained to spot them or be logical. They don't have time or the ability to think for themselves so they just follow the masses into error and trust their "professional" class. Surely everyone can't be wrong! Who do you think you are? You're not a (Rockefeller created/sponsored minion) professional!

What you say about speaking "normally without anger" is judgmental. When have I been angry here on this forum? It is merely you assuming I am angry. People assume others are just as they are when reading words. This is why such unmoderated forums are almost useless, or mostly worst than useless. Because it is just one big place to vent your assumptions. People assume claims are true and false. People assume other people's motives are good or bad. But there is no reason to rationally believe people are who or what they claim to be. Can you give me an example of where you think I was angry through my words here? You can't because I am actually demonstrating jesting to those I disagree with. Anyone who knows me in person knows how calm I am, as well as loving and understanding. I go into everything in life as a blessed gift moment of which I am a servant of God. My motive is glorify God at all times and seek everyone's well being because they all have intrinsic value. I learn from every experience and have no control agenda. All that prevents anger because there is nothing to lose.

So you assume that I am angry when I have demonstrated the opposite. If I was angry then would have responded to Nick the way I did? Or AG? Or G and other? And yet while you assume I am angry you assume that: "People who "attack" don't want to hurt you, it is just difference in view and opinion." How can you know that? How can you know either. As a matter of fact people love to hurt other people, so it is statistically improbable that you are right. But it doesn't matter to me if people are wanting to hurt or not. I don't react with anger, but have tried to help everyone nevertheless.

Again, no one should be expected to believe anything. You guys are still mystified in this assumption. Why do you still cling to the assumption lifestyle? I have said this repeatedly that you should never believe a claim over the internet. But most of you still do this and reason this way. That is believe a good or bad report that you have no justification believing. Don't you see how much this practice contributes to "fake news"? And as I wrote above, you show here the effects of unjustified belief of 1000s of lies. But you are only thinking that it was 1000 single lies and fail to understand that there were numerous lies to make each major claim be believed. It was because you wanted to believe something. So you gave it  force. There would be a lot less conmen if people were not so gullible. But did you consider that maybe many of these 1000 systems were actually true and that you guys placed your trust in some people to verify it but what they really did was like that fan video??? This happens all the time. This happens to me right here. And that is my one point I am stressing. You cannot believe my claim, and no one really wants to anyway (because I just showed up out of the blue and have done nothing and no one knows me at all  ;) ), and you cannot believe any counter claim (from people everyone knows personally and who they verify everything they claim in the real world  ;) ). That was meant to be funny if you didn't get that point. Still, even if someone is known in person and is generally reliable, they are still fallible and we can't just make them an authority. You see I don't teach with authoritarianism and dogma, I teach by showing you all how to do this yourselves. This is somewhat offensive as it gest real personal and exposes this false assumption practice that makes everyone fools. This is why I am effective because I speak to the individual at the deepest level. I have no pretension and just want to engage in the socratic dialectic and draw the truth out of people from their deepest reality.

So it depends on what you really mean by: "It saves me a lot of time of benching in vain." Because, as we saw yesterday with the fake fan disinfo video, millions of people thought the same thing: "It saves me a lot of time of benching in vain." Now they don't have to worry because someone figured it out for them that it was merely a hoax or mistake. Just like Mythbusters right? So what you have here is a Mythbusters light going on, which is the real hoax, just as that fan video was the actual hoax. And just to be clear, probably most people on this forum knows that the fan kit does not output what that video claims (so I am speaking along the lines that this is common knowledge now).

So just as you have caution in believing a positive claim, now yo have to be just as cautious in not believing the counter-claims. For who can condemn one and not the other? Who ought to believe one and not the other? They are both the same. But what you say shows a double standard for believe and doubt. You guys still don't get that whatever is shown or claimed over the internet does not amount to a justifiable reason for belief. So what has happened now, is that Overunity.com has become a den of hardened skeptics who disbelieve any claim (which is fine) but end up believing so-called authorities (just like in the establishment) and mythbusters who are not known in the real world, and who no one ought to believe their revelations through the internet, about disproving positive claims. So you rightfully disbelieve positive claims but have a double standard in not believing the negative claims of others. Both sets of claims are exactly the same. Both can be and are faked people. So I say don't believe the hype. And you cannot believe pictures, videos, and words from people you don't really know about things you have never actually seen in careful detail.

I guess I will just call out any such assumptions as "mythbuster prejudice assumptions" when ever people believe any positive or negative claim. People can make claims, and that is fine, but we can only rightfully believe truths of demonstration in science when the proper conditions has be realized (and that is in the real world, etc.). So any comment that makes a dogmatic conclusion about something needs to be corrected or you will all be swept away in error just as you have admitted to in this very statement. I am trying to help you guys because I have been helping people like you for 15 years now. But unless you get this right you will wonder around over and under believing things and will deceive yourselves and everyone you know. All these things I have proven to you by appealing to what you already know.

So don't assume you know anyone's specific motives or temper from mere words. You can't know really know what people are doing here. And as the subject matter is vastly important you have to expect that there is a high probability that cointelpro exists here.
Don't assume any OU claim is true.
Don't assume any replication or confirmation testimony is true. Like A.King for example. How can you know?
Don't assume any disproving replication testimony is true either. How can you know from either of these guys whether they are not mistaken or not showing some important details, etc.???

If you can't do this then let's just call the new Mythbuster's kids to determine the truth for us.

Rick,
As I said before, don't pay attention to attacking, which you did and I am glad, so now you speak normally without anger.
People who "attack" don't want to hurt you, it is just difference in view and opinion.
Lots of people here were mislead in the past, with 1000+ systems which did not work and they just wasted money and time chasing ghosts.
So, it is normal that lots of them have a hard time to believe again and ask for a prove, which is normal reaction.
You can not blame them for that.
That's why I need Hoopy and Itsu just as I need you.
I need someone to put me on the ground when I am lost and can not explain something.
It saves me a lot of time of benching in vain.
Hope you understand? No need to reply and make things worse! Just my opinion, which is right, no matter what you say or anybody else.
Good work!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 30, 2019, 12:55:26 AM
No it is not worth studying. See my other comments. I was trying to be polite but the video actually reveals that he doesn't understand these things. It just confuses everything. He showed that he didn't understand what that circuit was doing at all. And other comments show that someone else gave the information to him and he is claiming the opposite there. You can even see him asking people questions on other videos. So this is an example of someone claiming to be an originator of an idea when he was not. Those of you who have been on these forums long enough know the discussions that we have had in those matters over the years. So two points:

1. He didn't even understand the point of Tesla's circuit.
2. He falsely claimed that he was the first one to show something that obviously he was not.

It is worth studying:  Here is Rick's response to that video on the site.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 30, 2019, 01:42:14 AM
No it is not worth studying. See my other comments. I was trying to be polite but the video actually reveals that he doesn't understand these things. It just confuses everything. He showed that he didn't understand what that circuit was doing at all. And other comments show that someone else gave the information to him and he is claiming the opposite there. You can even see him asking people questions on other videos. So this is an example of someone claiming to be an originator of an idea when he was not. Those of you who have been on these forums long enough know the discussions that we have had in those matters over the years. So two points:

1. He didn't even understand the point of Tesla's circuit.
2. He falsely claimed that he was the first one to show something that obviously he was not.


Let me come in here with a comment.  When I watched the video some time back I did not understand it. Because Rick made a positive comment I assumed that there was something I missed, so I thought to myself "Well I'd better have another look at it".
I made the mistake of an assumption and I was wrong.  I am glad Rick verified my original impression as he has saved us a lot of confusion. So apologies to everyone.  I got it wrong.  (ouch)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 30, 2019, 01:43:47 AM
Very good Mario, I appreciate you wanting to learn.
Now I have shared a few things on this thread already, and many more in video. If you go to my youtube channel and watch the first video that loads up you will get the original Loving Paths demonstrations and ideas. I will probably be doing a video tonight that will enlarge upon that post from 2 days ago as to where you are to start.
But notice
http://potentialtec.com/14311Original.jpg (http://potentialtec.com/14311Original.jpg)
I'm not sure how to upload pictures.
This is an example of doing something similar.

But as for the specific questions, there are several options. I have shown transformers or inductors in series with various outputs. See the following video and schematic for some examples of basic level options.

https://youtu.be/U3JyRMdJhzg (https://youtu.be/U3JyRMdJhzg)
http://potentialtec.com/SeriesImpedances.jpg (http://potentialtec.com/SeriesImpedances.jpg)

I addressed your question the other day about Figure 5 in The True Wireless. On the contrary, in a) we have one wire off of the one wire buss. But yes, in b, we have a parallel arrangement as he says. It still is one wire however. Where would be two wires? It is across one wire. But this process is not merely about one wire, it can be two wires or wireless, etc. Try and get the idea and avoid overthinking it.

I show several different basic setups with the one wire, or two wires, or wireless. Once any of you get this then you will really appreciate Don Smith.

Remember it is all in the first stage process. Once you really understand the core thing I explained about the SSG type setup (without the trigger coil or even motor) then you will see that this is just doing it again and again. But you can't understand because you are thinking current flow. You have to first see that something different is happening on the output of the SSG or a reactive element. You have to come to grips with the fact that you have basically a duplication of the forward energy. If that is not your experience then you need to deal with that first and not get ahead. But once you can experience that then all the other stages follow. You are just created more reactive paths that do the same thing... End of story.

I didn't dangle a carrot over anyone's head. That is exactly what I exposed in Bedini the other day. Who do you think made all this open source and demonstrated all these things for years? lol You need to read through the last two weeks as I have shared all these things and answered your questions already. Also, see the videos over the last 3 years. If the old email lists were still up (which Bedini deleted) who would you find writing thousands of posts on these subjects? There are hundreds of pictures of my schematics, demonstrations and related matters all over Google images. So why are getting so uptight about this and talking about playing games? Also, it is not about wanting to share something, I did share it a long time ago and have continued to do that in better ways in recent years. I have shared online and in person many ways to get all your energy needs taken care of. I don't, and it would be impossible to try, share everything I know about all this, or any really high power systems. And I can see you are not asking. But what I don't understand is your last paragraph. Why are you so emotional? Have I failed to answer any question, good or crazy? There is really nothing more to go over. Just watch the Loving Paths videos and pick your flavor.

As for changing the world, we all do that positively or negatively. Will free energy change the world? No. Only a few people will be open to it. I have demonstrated these things for years but people don't really care. Even those striving for it are mostly not earnest about it. That is here in the US. In poor countries they embrace it. Some of you will be too zealous for your own good and will just get yourself in trouble if you expect to instantly change the world with free energy. The world already has a lot of free energy. The big governments already have that. There are many powerful free energy systems all around you. But you have all been under the psyops influence that promotes the idea that "nobody has it" yet. For if they did we would all hear about it. That has crippled this mass body of people into thinking it must be so hard to figure out or it is non-existent. Anyway, people like Stan M and Ed Gray, who tried to push this into the world as you may be implying, paid the ultimate price. If they had settled for quiet private sales they could have spread all their tech around he world (which has been done anyway) and accomplished much more than trying to overthrow the mafia systems. People think they know what is actually happening in the world and what they think would happen with this knowledge of free energy. But they are ignorant of human nature and the sophistication of the schemes to control the population.

Rick,
I don't want parts numbers, I want to understand the principle. I want to see a basic schematic, then I can understand how it's supposed to work. I find it confusing the way you present things. In b. Tesla has a series arrangement which is not in the one wire but parallel to it (longitudinal). Kron shows parallel arrangements, not in a one wire but between a potential source and each arrangement separated by a coil. What is your setup? I mean the one that is not perfect but works. Is it parallel or series? Series I have tried on the solid state SG output and can't see how it would work. Inserting a parallel arrangement instead is very easy to get tuned. Is this what you're doing? Although I can't see how you would get 0 voltage across a load. What do you see on the scope? Pulses? From the video I can't understand why it would show 0 volts. I know across a SERIES arrangement you read 0 volts, but a series arrangement doesn't seem to work on the SG output.
Please do not play the game of I know it all and you guys are never gonna find out. I've spent over 10 years of efforts, time, money and discipline in this quest and I'm sick and tired of people dangling the carrot in front of others. I was just about to quit it all and definitely, when I by accident stumbled upon this thread. I don't want to be spoon fed, I don't want a parts list. What do you want?? Do you REALLY want to share something or just amuse yourself watching us? Why not show a simple basic schematic with no values, just the principle, instead of dozens of long posts, do you want to teach us the method OR NOT? Do you want to change the world? I do, it's about time!


Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 30, 2019, 02:00:13 AM
Haha, and now you don't need to watch the video right? Because I am an authority doing the mythbusting for you! No, but I did give you real evidence in the real world. This was about the wrongly called Tesla Hairpin Circuit, when it had nothing to do with a hairpin shape but rather a straight bar. The whole video was out of context from where we find Tesla giving it to us. So I just quoted from a real paper that you can all read and verify. And it just so happens to address the very things we are talking about here, and which this Master was no master of. Look at all the attention that video got, and it was a fundamental mistake because he never bothered to even read the context. And he never demonstrated anything significant either. It was all about being the first guy which wasn't even true.

Anyway, this is good A.king. This is a case in point just like yesterday's videos. AG is just doing a great job giving us illustrations here. And I am not saying that sarcastically. It is a great experience for all of us to carefully look at such examples that mislead so many people. Here we have several positive claims that were manifestly false and mistakes. And then we have examples of believing such mistakes because he was being followed by people who thought he was an authority. But then we have to counter claim that was not merely of the same nature (unverifiable) but the only disproof possible was an appeal to the real world (the actual context of Tesla himself in real publications) rather than another dogmatic counter-claim.

It is interesting that he never took the video down even though he liked my comments which show he is fundamentally mistaken. That says a lot. 

I think this is being discussed on this forum somewhere so it may be good for someone to draw attention to these facts. Or maybe it was the energenic forum.

Let me come in here with a comment.  When I watched the video some time back I did not understand it. Because Rick made a positive comment I assumed that there was something I missed, so I thought to myself "Well I'd better have another look at it".
I made the mistake of an assumption and I was wrong.  I am glad Rick verified my original impression as he has saved us a lot of confusion. So apologies to everyone.  I got it wrong.  (ouch)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 30, 2019, 02:32:38 AM
  Rick:   It's funny because the link you just posted was what I had typed out from your circuit diagram so I could find the video.  Anyway I was going to post the circuit diagram because some people want to look at a circuit.
So here is Rick's circuit which is basically Tesla.  A flat hairpin circuit maybe??
I assume that the motor can be replaced with a solid state ssg type circuit which I would like a kit for......
Anyhow if  I'm wrong I am sure I will get a rebuke from Rick.  But some of us  do like solid state.....
The diagram takes a lot of study and I suggest you watch Rick's vid.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3JyRMdJhzg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3JyRMdJhzg&feature=youtu.be)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 30, 2019, 02:51:35 AM
Maybe modify your post to refer to this picture instead. I forgot to add my name to it.

  Rick:   It's funny because the link you just posted was what I had typed out from your circuit diagram so I could find the video.  Anyway I was going to post the circuit diagram because some people want to look at a circuit.
So here is Rick's circuit which is basically Tesla.  A flat hairpin circuit maybe??
I assume that the motor can be replaced with a solid state ssg type circuit which I would like a kit for......
Anyhow if  I'm wrong I am sure I will get a rebuke from Rick.  But some of us  do like solid state.....
The diagram takes a lot of study and I suggest you watch Rick's vid.
.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on June 30, 2019, 03:27:59 AM
modified.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 30, 2019, 11:34:41 AM
Hi Rick,


thanks for posting your schematic, see for me now everything's clear. It's what I did as my first option, the parallel resonant option I mean. Now that's why there's hardly any voltage to see, the load is inserted in series inside the parallel tank, where there's only oscillating current, the only voltage is the one developed by the load itself, across it's own impedance. What are those led modules rated for anyway? Your drawing of the resonant setup (on the right) is a bit confusing, is it supposed to be two distinct coils? One with core? Or one coil with a secondary? I know different ways to extract the energy from a parallel tank, I'm just not sure which one you're referring to with that drawing.


When at resonance the tank just looks like an almost infinite impedance to the SG coil output, so since the SG coil discharge adapts to the load impedance we get very narrow HV spikes. We could actually remove the output battery and replace it by a wire if we wanted to, just have to be careful not to fry the components :) . It's actually a 2 wire system pulsing a resonant tank which we extract some power off of the resonant reactive oscillations. Yes, we could put more tanks in series, but wouldn't it be much better putting more (infinite) parallel tanks in parallel? I think this is what Kron is showing, right? I'm not sure yet about the added series coils he shows between each tank, but I suppose it's a way to separate them from each other while all of them still keep having the same effect on the generator as just one tank: depending on frequency we can get to a point where the generator current becomes (almost) zero, but all the tanks are at full oscillating power! Am I seeing this correctly? In the end it's all about hitting as many tuning forks as possible with one trigger.


As for me getting emotional, yes sometimes it can happen. Like I wrote earlier, I've been at this for quite awhile now. There comes a moment where you say ok, now I either get something working, or I get back to having a life... Oh, and I agree with what you said in your last paragraph, I'm well aware, when I meant change the world I meant from the bottom up...


@Whatisit:  I hope you can see what I was talking about earlier now that Rick has posted a schematic.


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 30, 2019, 12:23:49 PM

I did some tests looking for sympathetic resonance (sorry for he pronunciation in the video) between 3 new coils setup in line with the big coil.

12.4V on the gate driver, 3700V on the big coil in resonance (180Khz).

The 3 coils in line with the big coil each have a 3W led attached which it lit according to their distance to the big coil.

Changing the distance inbetween the 3 new coils does not influence the last not lit led.
Only when putting the middle coil ontop of the last coil its led comes on dimly.

Not sure this is sympathetic resonance or plain transformer action, i guess the latter.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8pl1KxBq90 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8pl1KxBq90)


Itsu
 


An upfront sorry for the possible off topic and/or boring contents of the next post / video's.

I was trying to dive into this effect i had (see quote) which shows the led going on on the 3th satellite coil
when the 2th coil was ontop of it, NOT when it was close together to it.

I thought that it would be the coupling which could be stronger that way, so i did some tests with 2 of these coils.

First test is with my Spectrum Analyzer and Tracking Generator.
Feeding 1 coil with the TG (sweeping from 9KHz (minimum) to 400KHz (so the 193KHz resonance frequency in the middle)
and "listening" on the other coil with the SA.

The coupling between these 2 coils can be monitored that way.
Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbK8U_CmsJE


Second test was a similar one, now using the FG on one coil (sweeping) and the scope on the both.
The screenshot below shows the overcoupled situation (yellow the driven coil, blue the receiving coil.)
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI6JszIDG4Q


It seems that we both overcouple the coils in a similar way, so no or very little difference in coupling strength
when putting the both coils side by side or ontop of each other.

So why the led on the 3th coil in the quoted setup did light up only when the 2th coil was ontop is still unanswered to me.


Next i will try to follow Gyula's comment to see if the top coil receives more power because of its elevated position.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on June 30, 2019, 12:51:10 PM
Hi !
Can someone telle what is referred to as PLL ?
Rick, an Atelier is a workshop, and I mean a video workshop, on the  themes that I have enumerated. (One for each theme). I have not precised this but was thinking with off the shelf parts. It is not spoonfeeding...in certain categories of trainings, when the area covered is far somehow from the expected knowledge basis and experience of the trainees, a straightforward method  is provided, which may  include very  precise specifications on parts. In  such case, the example and practice come first, the understanding after. That is how I have been trained  by Zdenko Domancic on Bioenergy Domancic method, a first class method  of hands-on healing adressing very  popular  said  incurable affections. That is also exactly what you have created with the Rick kit , ie specific  parts coming with specific  instructions delivered  with the theory. So I see more of the same with sort of kit extensions, which I named Ateliers...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 30, 2019, 01:15:02 PM
Hi !
Can someone telle what is referred to as PLL ?
Rick, an Atelier is a workshop, and I mean a video workshop, on the  themes that I have enumerated. (One for each theme). I have not precised this but was thinking with off the shelf parts. It is not spoonfeeding...in certain categories of trainings, when the area covered is far somehow from the expected knowledge basis and experience of the trainees, a straightforward method  is provided, which may  include very  precise specifications on parts. In  such case, the example and practice come first, the understanding after. That is how I have been trained  by Zdenko Domancic on Bioenergy Domancic method, a first class method  of hands-on healing adressing very  popular  said  incurable affections. That is also exactly what you have created with the Rick kit , ie specific  parts coming with specific  instructions delivered  with the theory. So I see more of the same with sort of kit extensions, which I named Ateliers...
PLL Phase Locked Loop perhaps, abbreviations annoying for the unfamiliar and should really be declared  celavive (such is life)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on June 30, 2019, 01:21:54 PM
Itsu, no it's atually very interesting your  method To sweep To find the resonance point ! +I have answered why to your question imho.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on June 30, 2019, 01:24:19 PM
PLL Phase Locked Loop perhaps, abbreviations annoying for the unfamiliar and should really be declared  celavive (such is life)

Thanks AG. You mean "c'est la vie"  ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 30, 2019, 02:22:29 PM
Thanks AG. You mean "c'est la vie"  ;D
yes I do Thanks (so es das leben)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 30, 2019, 02:45:54 PM

An upfront sorry for the possible off topic and/or boring contents of the next post / video's.

I was trying to dive into this effect i had (see quote) which shows the led going on on the 3th satellite coil
when the 2th coil was ontop of it, NOT when it was close together to it.

I thought that it would be the coupling which could be stronger that way, so i did some tests with 2 of these coils.

First test is with my Spectrum Analyzer and Tracking Generator.
Feeding 1 coil with the TG (sweeping from 9KHz (minimum) to 400KHz (so the 193KHz resonance frequency in the middle)
and "listening" on the other coil with the SA.

The coupling between these 2 coils can be monitored that way.
Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbK8U_CmsJE


Second test was a similar one, now using the FG on one coil (sweeping) and the scope on the both.
The screenshot below shows the overcoupled situation (yellow the driven coil, blue the receiving coil.)
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI6JszIDG4Q


It seems that we both overcouple the coils in a similar way, so no or very little difference in coupling strength
when putting the both coils side by side or ontop of each other.

So why the led on the 3th coil in the quoted setup did light up only when the 2th coil was ontop is still unanswered to me.


Next i will try to follow Gyula's comment to see if the top coil receives more power because of its elevated position.


Itsu
Itsu Hi this device your Researching and Developing there is another Don Smith
board built on a section of plywood off cut I have seen whilst surfing the net  for other 'stuff',
the board i saw also had a Neon Driver converter module on board capacitor and HV diodes
what i'm getting at here is wouldn't the main out put coil be driven by an impulse pre driver circuit timing like a bunch of caps ? With the inductance the pulse would most probably appear as a sine wave eventually.

Regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on June 30, 2019, 02:58:50 PM
yes I do Thanks (so es das leben)
"That is life" or " so ist das Leben"  !


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 30, 2019, 03:51:30 PM
Very interesting tests your are performing ITSU.
 Now I look forward to a test where you insert the (sweeping) signal to the big coil (serial resonanse) and make signal detecting with the scope or else on the two Satellite coils besides or on top of each other. In the same way as before. Parallel and 10kOhm.
About the puzzling question about the LEDs:
Is that refering maybe to some LEDs voltage threshold level (knee) that you come just above when putting the coils on top of each other?

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on June 30, 2019, 04:02:41 PM
Very interesting tests your are performing ITSU.
 Now I look forward to a test where you insert the (sweeping) signal to the big coil (serial resonanse) and make signal detecting with the scope or else on the two Satellite coils besides or on top of each other. In the same way as before. Parallel and 10kOhm.
About the puzzling question about the LEDs:
Is that refering maybe to some LEDs voltage threshold level (knee) that you come just above when putting the coils on top of each other?

Regarda Arne
Hi Arne,
Yes, there can be differences between forwards voltage specs of LED bulbs even within the same batch,  this is one thing.

The other question is why the induced voltage in the bottom coil increases when he puts the other coil on top of it, both coils are in the outermost position.  A possible explanation can be the TX coil produces a stronger field at that hight for top coil and due to the mutual coupling between the top and bottom coils, induced energy can increase in the bottom coil.  This is a possible explanation.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on June 30, 2019, 04:08:29 PM
gyulasun
I agree with your reasoning I have thought of the same.

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 30, 2019, 05:04:32 PM
Mario, very good. It's not fully clear I can see. It takes time for these things to sink in because they are opposite to what you are used to. Even after years of engineering this it is still difficult because there are two different kinds of systems happening at the same time and people only admit one of them. I will be doing a video today that covers these things more or less.

There are various options, some of which I will not be talking about. But when the themes are understood then you can expand your options in many ways.
Remember what Dollard said, that even voltage is part of the measurement of wasted energy. We tend to think merely of amperage and wattage as such, but voltage is part of the same (and people really don't know what they mean by the term. That's why I struggle at times to decide upon the right words to use in this teaching. Voltage and amperage are showing the rate of destroying the source charge. These impedances or nodes are zero voltage negative resistors where energy converges into them from the Aether so there is no measurement of wasted energy going into them because it is a pure process. You can measure the resulting reaction, just like the results of an impulse, but you have to carefully consider the full time. I will point out the fallacies against free energy today where there is special pleading taking place in respect to selective time measurements as well as assumptions with meters.
As for the parts, they to can be negative resistors and show no voltage across them as was the case in the video. One secret hint we gave was that everything had to be in balance. Also something I mentioned with the publication of that black box video. I am only going so far with the advanced stuff as what I showed. I have more teachings at my personal meetings. But yes, you can have resistive loads that measure and incur losses if you want. And yes, if you have oscillating energy you can run loads for free without a net loss either. Options, options, options.
We have used all types of LEDs from the smallest to largest. All sizes of incandescents. All gas types, etc. Not sure which specific ones you refer to.
The different coils and transformers are just options and can be done at the same time. There are other options as well. This was just a sample. The third one is incomplete and would need to have a load to discharge the cap or else it would blow up and also blow out the motor circuit.
Remember that we are also talking about a negative impulse here so this has differences. That is something you can only learn by experience. So I leave everyone to just discover...
Haha, be careful not to fry components. Ask my students recently when they went down to the 4ns switching ranges with expensive mosfets and gate drivers. They had more energy then they could handle and blew out very high rated voltage/amperage parts. The other thing to mention here, and is one reason why I left even the basic level details in a black box for a few years, was that I realized that people would partially damage their semiconductors if they did not completely fry them and then get poor results after that and not even realize it. Some poor folks have had systems running for years with damaged transistors or mosfets and don't know it. So this will happen to you as well. And this becomes expensive. That is why this year I have focused on adding protections to the circuit in preparing to show all this to everyone.
You can do one wire, two wires, many wires, or no wires when you understand this.
Kron is showing the representation of the basic transmission line, and specifically that is another subject. But there are points that specifically relate to this here.
You are getting some of it somewhat. You just have to remember that there are different options once you understand all the themes. So it is not about one way here. There are some core ideas/themes that have to occur but there are a variety of options.

This is a very important point I say to the guys at my meetings: If I were to ask your wives if the time and money spent on this was justifiable over the years in saving/making money or whether it is more of a hobby for you because you like to tinker with interesting circuits? What would they say? Then I force them into realism and see that most people like to tinker around and some have done that for 30 years. That's fine, but I try and bring them to this realization. Some people will just not get it also. But you have to look at the fruit of the teaching of so many people and wonder why so many people are not succeeding. The old claim by Bearden and Bedini that they cared about the little old women at the end of the road who couldn't pay her electric bill just wasn't true. These guys were capable of helping such people but didn't. So there is a big problem if people find that they are getting nowhere in this. This is why I have always focused on simple ways to benefit from this technology as represented by: doing something rather than nothing approach. I always recommend for people to do something that works and keep it going rather than always race after the big output and never get it done. Remember I said this is 90-95% psychological. Having a little setup running for years means something. Even making a little magnet motor that does no real work, but perpetually spins will give you satisfaction as it did for those of us who played with such toys. In the same way you will see this point in the next video I'm working on. First settle the stage one process and come to grips with the fact that the law of conservation is not true and only a special case under a steady state existence, and is a time fallacy also. Come to grips with the same fact that Kirchhoff's loop rule is only a means of calculating a steady state point in time without considering all time in the real world process (and all total environmental reactions from start to finish). Once you see that the loop does not add up to zero, but has other positive or negative gains, then the game is over. That needs to be settled. You guys on this forum refuse to settle these points because you either do not want to admit to OU (and concede to these foundations) or you are just so desperate for free energy that you try and jump to the end results and hopefully find some magical circuit that gives the goods. But you cannot bypass the psychological facts of the matter. Unless you have a solid foundation you will just be confused with the end processes. You build upon truth not guessing. So once you see that reactive elements in a circuit give you a gain then that is the beginning and end of the matter. It is really that simple people. Even a resistor, as we will look at in the video, will give you some reaction when you turn it on and off. It is dishonest for teachers to misrepresent the entire picture here and then special plead and conclude with a dogma about conservation of energy. So once you see there is more than unity resulting from the loop, and not just consider what is in the loop, you have arrived at the true study of electricity in contrast to the study of mere power dissipation processes. It seems Mario, that you may still have some vague settling of this foundation point, so I encourage you to settle this point first. The fact that you do not have any solution and are bringing up the question of making a decision to continue in this research or get on with life shows this is not really settled with you. That may be partially settled, but I will do this video to help people settle this beginning point first. Then you will have a reason to do free energy engineering. Then you will all see that G's understanding of electricity is merely limited and why I wrote what I did, and why he did not respond, and can't respond. So we need to not only know what the truth is, but because we are used to being in a matrix like existence in regards to using underunity systems, we need to also understand and contrast why these are wrong (in the sense of the claim that they are the only possible way/limits). So I propose to do a video on the related fallacies.

Hi Rick,
thanks for posting your schematic, see for me now everything's clear. It's what I did as my first option, the parallel resonant option I mean. Now that's why there's hardly any voltage to see, the load is inserted in series inside the parallel tank, where there's only oscillating current, the only voltage is the one developed by the load itself, across it's own impedance. What are those led modules rated for anyway? Your drawing of the resonant setup (on the right) is a bit confusing, is it supposed to be two distinct coils? One with core? Or one coil with a secondary? I know different ways to extract the energy from a parallel tank, I'm just not sure which one you're referring to with that drawing.
When at resonance the tank just looks like an almost infinite impedance to the SG coil output, so since the SG coil discharge adapts to the load impedance we get very narrow HV spikes. We could actually remove the output battery and replace it by a wire if we wanted to, just have to be careful not to fry the components :) . It's actually a 2 wire system pulsing a resonant tank which we extract some power off of the resonant reactive oscillations. Yes, we could put more tanks in series, but wouldn't it be much better putting more (infinite) parallel tanks in parallel? I think this is what Kron is showing, right? I'm not sure yet about the added series coils he shows between each tank, but I suppose it's a way to separate them from each other while all of them still keep having the same effect on the generator as just one tank: depending on frequency we can get to a point where the generator current becomes (almost) zero, but all the tanks are at full oscillating power! Am I seeing this correctly? In the end it's all about hitting as many tuning forks as possible with one trigger.
As for me getting emotional, yes sometimes it can happen. Like I wrote earlier, I've been at this for quite awhile now. There comes a moment where you say ok, now I either get something working, or I get back to having a life... Oh, and I agree with what you said in your last paragraph, I'm well aware, when I meant change the world I meant from the bottom up...
@Whatisit:  I hope you can see what I was talking about earlier now that Rick has posted a schematic.
thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 30, 2019, 05:07:09 PM
Yes, that is what I am trying to do in various ways. Very good.

Hi !
Can someone telle what is referred to as PLL ?
Rick, an Atelier is a workshop, and I mean a video workshop, on the  themes that I have enumerated. (One for each theme). I have not precised this but was thinking with off the shelf parts. It is not spoonfeeding...in certain categories of trainings, when the area covered is far somehow from the expected knowledge basis and experience of the trainees, a straightforward method  is provided, which may  include very  precise specifications on parts. In  such case, the example and practice come first, the understanding after. That is how I have been trained  by Zdenko Domancic on Bioenergy Domancic method, a first class method  of hands-on healing adressing very  popular  said  incurable affections. That is also exactly what you have created with the Rick kit , ie specific  parts coming with specific  instructions delivered  with the theory. So I see more of the same with sort of kit extensions, which I named Ateliers...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 30, 2019, 06:15:46 PM
Rick,


are you saying that it's not just about hitting tanks with the negative spike and take some power of the resulting resonant current? I get that depending on tuning we can either send back power to the input or send more to the charge battery, or neither and have the system in balance. Are you saying that when it is in balance something else happens which results in the possibility of the load not having voltage across it?
Maybe the best way to learn what you mean (or what you think I'm missing) is you giving a concrete example, I have solid state SG, I have a resonant tank (unloaded yet) between diode and charge battery. Show me what I should do with it to experience what you mean.
Btw, you said that in your schematic the third coil is not complete and that the cap would explode. I thought that cap was connected to the coil to make it resonant. It's actually not clear to me if the third and fourth coil are supposed to be one setup the way it is shown, or are they two separate setups? The cap you mention is connected to the coil on its left side, does the caps right leg touch the coil(s)?


I was referring to the diode lamps you show in the main video on your channel, at what voltage are they normally run at?


I'm looking forward to the new video:)


thanks


Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 30, 2019, 07:38:48 PM
Mario,
I am doing a video right now and will go over things point by point. But I am not going to discuss other themes/possibilities because that is getting too involved for people. And so far I have no assurance that people are settled on the very first point. You need to fully settle on the first point before trying to figure out the advanced processes. I will enlarge upon the basics now and that will show you what to do after that. It will be self-evident after the aha! moment.
I said that the balance is something you have to always keep in mind and which is for you to figure out. And yes, in a manner of speaking.
No, I am not going to give my advanced process over to you or anyone no matter how much you ask. I have shown what is sufficient for everyone. You will figure out more after you settle on the basics, and then experiment. I will not dispense with the learning by experience process. If people don't do that they will just be dependent upon others.
I don't know if you have a proper solid state SSG. I cannot help anyone remotely or over the internet. And I cannot be assured that your semiconductors are not partly damaged. Which is most likely the case. EVERYONE will do that when they start to do this basic third stage process. So be prepared to have plenty of replacement parts for each controlled experiment. Very very few of you will ever do such controlled experiments because of the time and cost and mostly because you assume your parts are still fine because they still are switching. Some of you may have advanced semiconductor experience and know what I am talking about here. Again, this is why I didn't show even the basic level. Now I have opened the door and when people jump ahead and try this, even before they are settled in the basics (which I have no evidence that most people here have that settled) then they will go back to the basic level and get poor results. I have 15 years of full-time experience helping thousands of people all over the world with exactly this problem. Some people spend over a year with the same damaged parts and don't realize it. Then I visit them and pop in another transistor and presto, everything changes. Not the magic touch but Mr. Fixer  ;) with undamaged parts.
Again, this is why we cannot trust anyone's pictures, videos, or words about claims against FE systems. Because in many cases you have damaged parts.

So I would say that it is a bad idea to start with a solid state setup. Especially I believe you may have said you are powering it with a power supply. And you would want to start with fresh parts anyway.

The cap statement wasn't so specific. It was just said to tell you that no load was on it. It was an incomplete diagram, or just showing an example of a moment in time. And yes, in a tank circuit you can explode the caps.

I don't really get what your last sentences mean exactly.

Rick,
are you saying that it's not just about hitting tanks with the negative spike and take some power of the resulting resonant current? I get that depending on tuning we can either send back power to the input or send more to the charge battery, or neither and have the system in balance. Are you saying that when it is in balance something else happens which results in the possibility of the load not having voltage across it?
Maybe the best way to learn what you mean (or what you think I'm missing) is you giving a concrete example, I have solid state SG, I have a resonant tank (unloaded yet) between diode and charge battery. Show me what I should do with it to experience what you mean.
Btw, you said that in your schematic the third coil is not complete and that the cap would explode. I thought that cap was connected to the coil to make it resonant. It's actually not clear to me if the third and fourth coil are supposed to be one setup the way it is shown, or are they two separate setups? The cap you mention is connected to the coil on its left side, does the caps right leg touch the coil(s)?
I was referring to the diode lamps you show in the main video on your channel, at what voltage are they normally run at?
I'm looking forward to the new video:)
thanks
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on June 30, 2019, 08:08:18 PM
Can you also explain in video why Q factor is free energy ? I have my own theory about it, waiting for comments on this topic also. If I could only confirm my theory....everything would be changed...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on June 30, 2019, 08:35:54 PM

Rick,


I'm not asking to show your advanced setup. Maybe I'm not sure where the part of the third stage process you're willing to teach ends and the advanced part starts..


Right now my setup runs from a battery, it has a 555 controlled variable frequency and duty cycle control. Right now I have 500V20A mosfets on it, but have 1000V ones as well. I have two actually, one is a fat 10 filer (awg 18) coil, the smaller one is 4 filler and is the one I'm testing this with. I have fried many components over the years lol. Having a variable duty cycle helps as you can dial up the input power slowly from almost zero while monitoring on the scope. Parts can be checked and measured, this shouldn't be a big problem.


I meant the led lamps you put in the glass of water in the video, what voltage are they rated for?


thanks,
Mario

Mario,
I am doing a video right now and will go over things point by point. But I am not going to discuss other themes/possibilities because that is getting too involved for people. And so far I have no assurance that people are settled on the very first point. You need to fully settle on the first point before trying to figure out the advanced processes. I will enlarge upon the basics now and that will show you what to do after that. It will be self-evident after the aha! moment.
I said that the balance is something you have to always keep in mind and which is for you to figure out. And yes, in a manner of speaking.
No, I am not going to give my advanced process over to you or anyone no matter how much you ask. I have shown what is sufficient for everyone. You will figure out more after you settle on the basics, and then experiment. I will not dispense with the learning by experience process. If people don't do that they will just be dependent upon others.
I don't know if you have a proper solid state SSG. I cannot help anyone remotely or over the internet. And I cannot be assured that your semiconductors are not partly damaged. Which is most likely the case. EVERYONE will do that when they start to do this basic third stage process. So be prepared to have plenty of replacement parts for each controlled experiment. Very very few of you will ever do such controlled experiments because of the time and cost and mostly because you assume your parts are still fine because they still are switching. Some of you may have advanced semiconductor experience and know what I am talking about here. Again, this is why I didn't show even the basic level. Now I have opened the door and when people jump ahead and try this, even before they are settled in the basics (which I have no evidence that most people here have that settled) then they will go back to the basic level and get poor results. I have 15 years of full-time experience helping thousands of people all over the world with exactly this problem. Some people spend over a year with the same damaged parts and don't realize it. Then I visit them and pop in another transistor and presto, everything changes. Not the magic touch but Mr. Fixer  ;) with undamaged parts.
Again, this is why we cannot trust anyone's pictures, videos, or words about claims against FE systems. Because in many cases you have damaged parts.

So I would say that it is a bad idea to start with a solid state setup. Especially I believe you may have said you are powering it with a power supply. And you would want to start with fresh parts anyway.

The cap statement wasn't so specific. It was just said to tell you that no load was on it. It was an incomplete diagram, or just showing an example of a moment in time. And yes, in a tank circuit you can explode the caps.

I don't really get what your last sentences mean exactly.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on June 30, 2019, 09:05:49 PM
You have to get into the real nature of energy, where it comes from? How does it transfer? What is Q really? Many of the whys and hows will never be known in our present existence. We are often left to what happens when you do this or that. The problem with the skeptic is that they demand to know everything about something before they will believe in it. But even Heaviside said something to the effect that he didn't have to understand digestion before he would eat something. So we have to know our limitations. It is interesting that some books define Q vaguely or as some application or whatever. So it is a good question to look at carefully. All of these words and processes are defined in a certain context, so the context is everything. What you go in with is what you will come out with.

Can you also explain in video why Q factor is free energy ? I have my own theory about it, waiting for comments on this topic also. If I could only confirm my theory....everything would be changed...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on June 30, 2019, 09:11:35 PM
All if reading some have excessive voltage is a problem then this technigue could indeed help you
How it works, buy cascading HV MosFets.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tomd on June 30, 2019, 10:51:33 PM
INTRODUCING THE MORON LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION..taken from the yahoo group


https://energyevo.com/2015/01/18/updated-compilation-of-important-info-don-smith-shared-to-nuenergy-yahoo-group/ (https://energyevo.com/2015/01/18/updated-compilation-of-important-info-don-smith-shared-to-nuenergy-yahoo-group/)


However I will argue that Don Smith did not  invent the effect.   It was invented by Carlos Benitez. Benitez stated that when pulsing one plate of a capacitor, the other plate automatically charges up from the ground.( Benitez then switches the ground on and off mechanically creating an energy pump.
To the EE's present who have not been taught correctly  -  it is called "Electrostatic induction"  -  Look it up.
It is usually glossed over as  unimportant.  Nothing to see here -  move on (lol).
I think this is what where talking about. Explained in an easy to understand way. Download the attached document. https://overunity.com/18239/the-solution/ (https://overunity.com/18239/the-solution/)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on June 30, 2019, 11:28:56 PM
Very interesting tests your are performing ITSU.
 Now I look forward to a test where you insert the (sweeping) signal to the big coil (serial resonanse) and make signal detecting with the scope or else on the two Satellite coils besides or on top of each other. In the same way as before. Parallel and 10kOhm.
About the puzzling question about the LEDs:
Is that refering maybe to some LEDs voltage threshold level (knee) that you come just above when putting the coils on top of each other?

Regards Arne

I used the same 2 satellite coils as yesterday to check for coupling with the scope but now in series LC configuration.

First i could not find the 193KHz resonance point as it seems to be shifted to 3.5MHz.
I think i measure now the self resonance of the satellite coils, not their series LC resonance point.

After attaching the FG to the yellow coil directly instead of using a 2 loop wire, i now find a resonance "dip"
around the 193KHz on the yellow coil and a broad peak there on the blue coil (plus some resonance peaks around 3.5MHz).

So using the coils either in parallel or series LC configuration makes a lot of difference.

But it still shows that it hardly matters if the coils are coupled horizontally or vertically.


Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2GxHd78tS0



I then used the big coil in series LC (as done always) directly driven from the FG so no gate driver.
We see the same "dip" around 193Khz as in above tests.

The satellite coil was first put into series LC, lateron at parallel LC

We see the same thing as above, in series LC strong resonance peaks around 3.5 - 4MHz and a weaker peak
around 193KHz.

In parallel LC we see only a resonance peak at 193KHz, so to me the parallel LC configuration of the satellite
coils is the preferred one.

Video here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yES9kJkHFk0


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 01, 2019, 12:27:15 AM
Hi ITSU
In your two latest videos I found you perhaps made a small fault when you connected the very high Ohm probes direct to the series resonant circuits whithout a load resistor and got a resonance around 3,5 Mc.
Actually you are only using the L:s in practice then.
With series resonant circuits you have to use a low Ohm resistor (50 Ohm?) to manitan the resonance at 193 kc and put your probes across that (L-C-R).
 It's nice to follow your reseach here in the summer-part of the globe. I'm not testing now at this time in the year only cheats as a gardener at home.

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 01, 2019, 12:45:50 AM
Just a reminder:  This video still makes me smile so here is a still from it. It is self explanatory. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoOWs8SfVo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoOWs8SfVo)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 01, 2019, 12:52:06 AM
Hi Itsu,

I agree with seaad.  The 10:1 scope probe input capacitance (13-15 pF) was also in series with
the 5 nF tuning cap. This is why the frequency of the series LC went up, the 5 nF has become
quasi a short circuit at 3.5 MHz, the tuning cap was the probe input capacitance.  You can check
this with an online LC resonant tank calculator, using say 13 pF for C in the Thomson formula.
(The 10 MOhm probe resistance was an open circuit.)   

Yes, for the receiving, the parallel LC circuits are to be used, for transmitting the series LC circuit
is to be used in such setups. Thanks for the videos. 

To explore the answer for an earlier phenomena you found  i.e. when you put the middle coil onto
the top of the outermost coil and the LED became lit across the latter, why it may have been?
Probably doing field strength indications by a probe coil and a small power LED at the same distance
from the TX coil the two vertically stacked coil were positioned would reveal an answer. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 01, 2019, 01:02:19 AM
A.king, 

Please try to modify the picture horizontal pixel number from 1366 x 768  to max 900 x 768 so that
the horizontal width of this thread in this page should return to the normal size. 
You can use any picture editor like Windows Paint and reupload your picture. 
This way most of the readers here would not need to scroll from left to right to read each line in the text.

Thanks.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 01, 2019, 04:06:22 AM
Coils at all angles.  ha ha lol
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on July 01, 2019, 06:49:38 AM
Hi all
I'd like to ask Rick about the series inductor impedances which serve as a stand alone reaction loops. Each connecting point between those inductances, is a reflection point especially when we are in resonance. This eventually will lead to a creation of standing waves on the line which consists of that reactive loops. Is that an effect that relates to the amounts of the extracted free energy? Is that a point that we have to pay more attention like building for example reactive loops with specific lengths of wire harmonically related?

Thanks
Jeg 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 01, 2019, 10:27:26 AM

Seaad,  Gyula,


thanks for the heads up, i knew i did something wrong when measuring the series LC, which is funny (not) as i used a
50 Ohm load before when measuring series LC.
Now i used a 10K instead which did not work.

Anyway, i will try to "map" the magnetic field of the big coil to see how it looks like using a MLX90393 i have.
http://www.arduinoprojects.net/sensor-projects/connecting-mlx90393-magnetic-field-sensor-arduino-uno.php

No sure how the sensor behaves with 180KHz signals, but the rough idea looks like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frj3ymDJdOc

Hopefully the AC like signal will be averaged by the sensor to show a steady indication of the field strength.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 01, 2019, 12:39:24 PM
Hi Itsu, 

Thanks for your kind efforts. Hopefully the sensor can cope with the 180 kHz frequency.

Perhaps the following suggestion may also reveal the field strength at the place where the two vertically stacked
satellite coils were positioned. See attached picture from your earlier video. First replace (in any one of the 3 coils)
the power LED bulb with a single low power white or red 5 or 10 mm LED which are able to give visiable light at
a few mW received power at the same distance from the TX coil the stacked coils were. This way you can use the
same sized satellite coil as a probe sensor coil.   

I drew a vertical green line in the top picture where the stacked coils were,  remove them and then use the probe
sensor coil alongside the vertical line, up and down to indicate field strength. For this to happen you need to drive
the TX coil in the same way as earlier with the stacked coils setup and leave the 1st coil (with its power LED too)
at the same place it was when you stacked the two other coils and place the middle coil far away from the setup. 

I drew a nearly horizontal green line in the bottom picture to indicate that the 3 satellite coils were positioned quasi at
the middle height of the TX coil where supposedly the EM field is the strongest with respect to the top or bottom part
of the TX coil. This may mean that when you put the middle coil onto the top of the outermost coil and the LED got lit
on the latter coil, then the top coil may not have received more energy from the TX coil because the EM field may not
have been so strong for it at that height wrt the TX coil.  This is a speculation of course.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 01, 2019, 01:10:00 PM
Well, you will just have to see for yourself. I'm not sure who would dispute this. The angle would have to be turned more for it to not work. When you are very close like that you can almost turn it in any direction and it will do this.

quote a.king21 Posts: 1481:  Coils at all angles.             ha ha lol 
                                            OU coils at all angles2.jpg

It doesn't matter what you are doing guys the LEDs will be glowing anyhow.  Ha ha
 Any serious measurements?
 NO

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 01, 2019, 03:04:35 PM
BEWARE: Stop using the abbreviation 'LOL,'" the hastily made image that invokes the same qualities as a Westboro Baptist Church sign reads. "'LOL stands for 'Lucifer our Lord.' Satanists end their prayers by saying Lucifer our Lord,' in short, "LOL.' Every time you type 'LOL' you are endorsing Satan."26 Nov 2012
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 01, 2019, 05:29:45 PM
I'm going to need another week to finish this video. I'm going to make a big presentation on this.

I'm not going to enlarge about what I mean by balance. But you are moving in the right direction it seems. You will see the video and associated information next week that will demonstrate as far as I am going to show. If you watch the videos I have done already you can see this. I will be organizing all the videos (beyond my playlists on my rickfriedrich youtube channel) next week.

Rick,
are you saying that it's not just about hitting tanks with the negative spike and take some power of the resulting resonant current? I get that depending on tuning we can either send back power to the input or send more to the charge battery, or neither and have the system in balance. Are you saying that when it is in balance something else happens which results in the possibility of the load not having voltage across it?
Maybe the best way to learn what you mean (or what you think I'm missing) is you giving a concrete example, I have solid state SG, I have a resonant tank (unloaded yet) between diode and charge battery. Show me what I should do with it to experience what you mean.
Btw, you said that in your schematic the third coil is not complete and that the cap would explode. I thought that cap was connected to the coil to make it resonant. It's actually not clear to me if the third and fourth coil are supposed to be one setup the way it is shown, or are they two separate setups? The cap you mention is connected to the coil on its left side, does the caps right leg touch the coil(s)?
I was referring to the diode lamps you show in the main video on your channel, at what voltage are they normally run at?
I'm looking forward to the new video:)
thanks
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 01, 2019, 05:49:58 PM
Yes.

Hi all
I'd like to ask Rick about the series inductor impedances which serve as a stand alone reaction loops. Each connecting point between those inductances, is a reflection point especially when we are in resonance. This eventually will lead to a creation of standing waves on the line which consists of that reactive loops. Is that an effect that relates to the amounts of the extracted free energy? Is that a point that we have to pay more attention like building for example reactive loops with specific lengths of wire harmonically related?
Thanks
Jeg
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on July 01, 2019, 06:04:48 PM
Hi Rick,


that's great, take your time. Something else: when we talked about how to use a negatively charged battery on the front end I said I use a big cap, you said it's the right direction but something else needed to be made, and that the schematics have been shown. Could you tell me where I can find them? I suppose it could be disconnecting the battery from the cap on the positive side with a mosfet run out of phase with the drive mosfet...


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 01, 2019, 06:27:42 PM
And can any serious measurements be taken seriously over the internet? You will never be able to tell enough from pictures or videos if the measurements are real or fake, or mistaken, or what the complete environment really is when this is shared through the internet. Why do you guys still have this double standard??? You readily believe anything someone says or shows against a free energy claim while you disbelieve anything someone says for free energy claims. And those for free energy will readily believe videos and pictures and claims of free energy systems and disbelieve those who oppose. So most people are doing one of these or the other. But the truth is you cannot believe any meter readings shown here or anywhere online. Here is one point along these lines in the video I am doing presently: You can not even realize that you have damaged parts and then you do your measurements and come to wrong conclusions. So the skeptic is confirmed because he wants to disbelieve the claim. On the other hand, the believer in free energy may have a meter that isn't properly calibrated and gives him a false positive. How can we know the whole story if we are not there and fully check things out over time and properly control the details? You just can't do that.

Now I have no problem with people sharing pictures and videos as is being done. But conclusions people are making from other peoples claims is unjustified and actually reckless. It promotes a double standard as I said.

So my point is that someone posting pictures without meters, while making a claim that they are excited about, is just as valuable, and on the same level, as someone posting very limited pictures with meters while making claims. They are both unverifiable claims. So the both are of equal value when it comes to proving anything--which neither of them prove anything. All they can really do is suggest ideas for people to try. And as such they are valuable. But as we have seen yesterday, there are mistakes being made with meters. This only goes to show everyone that you will never know the actual environment of anyone else over the internet. You can never know what all they could be doing wrong or be mistaken by or if it is real at all.


quote a.king21 Posts: 1481:  Coils at all angles.             ha ha lol 
                                            OU coils at all angles2.jpg

It doesn't matter what you are doing guys the LEDs will be glowing anyhow.  Ha ha
 Any serious measurements?
 NO
Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 01, 2019, 06:46:20 PM
Yes that subject of what is happening in the battery is too involved to get into on the forums (and it requires the use of words and models that I am undecided in at this time). As for the idea, you are converting the negative to positive through a capacitor. So you can see the way we do it with the cap pulser before the battery, and you can think that through and do something similar on the front end. This would be like using various RC or even LC filters like you find with bandpass bypass, etc. I don't usually do that and having posted any schematics myself so you are on your own.

The idea to understand, as has been recently brought up here, is the DSE or Don Smith Effect. The idea is that the capacitor is a blocking device. More importantly it allows for replicating the energy on the front side on the back side. So the OU demonstration Don gave, that most people completely missed, was that he had double the arcing from the input when you consider the regular arcing to the one side of the plate was about 1" and then when he added a ground terminal an inch away from the other side plate it arced another 1" and effectively doubled or duplicated the energy. Now the arc was a real load on both sides. This is an essential process with Don Smith systems.

The point here is that the capacitor replicates the energy on the output side, and this case the replication becomes positive energy and results in current flow under the circumstances. So once you understand this you can build the appropriate filter(s) so do the same on the front end. The same is true with doing this third stage process to power loads with positive energy.

Hi Rick,
that's great, take your time. Something else: when we talked about how to use a negatively charged battery on the front end I said I use a big cap, you said it's the right direction but something else needed to be made, and that the schematics have been shown. Could you tell me where I can find them? I suppose it could be disconnecting the battery from the cap on the positive side with a mosfet run out of phase with the drive mosfet...
thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 01, 2019, 10:35:49 PM
BEWARE: Stop using the abbreviation 'LOL,'" the hastily made image that invokes the same qualities as a Westboro Baptist Church sign reads. "'LOL stands for 'Lucifer our Lord.' Satanists end their prayers by saying Lucifer our Lord,' in short, "LOL.' Every time you type 'LOL' you are endorsing Satan."26 Nov 2012
I thought it meant laugh out loud.  Ah well you live and learn.
Anyhow I did not use capitals.. I was trying to introduce some lightness into the study.
So maybe use ha ha ha instead  (ha ha). :D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 01, 2019, 10:42:29 PM

quote a.king21 Posts: 1481:  Coils at all angles.             ha ha lol 
                                            OU coils at all angles2.jpg

It doesn't matter what you are doing guys the LEDs will be glowing anyhow.  Ha ha
 Any serious measurements?
 NO

Arne
The OU reference is for Overunity.com.  I never claimed anything in that picture just the fact that the coils can be magnetically crafted to light up at whatever angle you wish.  Some people may not be aware of that.  Why don't you do some experiments and show us your results instead of having a go at other people.
I could easily take your position but it's not in my nature.
That is why Rick is not going to give you much more.
Think about it....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 01, 2019, 11:11:17 PM
Hi Itsu, 

Thanks for your kind efforts. Hopefully the sensor can cope with the 180 kHz frequency.

Perhaps the following suggestion may also reveal the field strength at the place where the two vertically stacked
satellite coils were positioned. See attached picture from your earlier video. First replace (in any one of the 3 coils)
the power LED bulb with a single low power white or red 5 or 10 mm LED which are able to give visiable light at
a few mW received power at the same distance from the TX coil the stacked coils were. This way you can use the
same sized satellite coil as a probe sensor coil.   

I drew a vertical green line in the top picture where the stacked coils were,  remove them and then use the probe
sensor coil alongside the vertical line, up and down to indicate field strength. For this to happen you need to drive
the TX coil in the same way as earlier with the stacked coils setup and leave the 1st coil (with its power LED too)
at the same place it was when you stacked the two other coils and place the middle coil far away from the setup. 

I drew a nearly horizontal green line in the bottom picture to indicate that the 3 satellite coils were positioned quasi at
the middle height of the TX coil where supposedly the EM field is the strongest with respect to the top or bottom part
of the TX coil. This may mean that when you put the middle coil onto the top of the outermost coil and the LED got lit
on the latter coil, then the top coil may not have received more energy from the TX coil because the EM field may not
have been so strong for it at that height wrt the TX coil.  This is a speculation of course.

Gyula

Gyula,

thanks for the proposed actionplan to find out why the 3th coil led went on with the 2th coil ontop.

I tried to followed it, but can say upfront that the fact that the ontop coil receives more RF is not the (whole) reason.



The main reason i think is the fact that when coupling 2 satellite coils so closely their resonance point splits into
2 different resonance points a few tenths KHz away from each other as we did see in my FG/scope tests.

I was running the FG at 180KHz up till now, but the recent FG/scope tests also showed that the real resonance
frequency of my satellite coils is around 193KHz.

So when driving and tuning the big coil at 180KHz, the satellite coils are receiving that RF, but are not quite
in resonance (193Khz, so 13kHz to high).
When now coupling 2 satellite coils we see that their resonance points split, one higher in frequency, one lower.
This new lower resonance frequency peak of the satellite coils probably now just hit 180Khz when ontop, so therefor is now able to light the led.


I checked this out by upping the big coil input frequency to 193KHz and tuning accordingly into resonance.
Now this effect of lighting the 3th coil led with the 2th coil ontop was gone, and even caused the leds to go off
because of these split resonance points during overcoupling.

Video here (rather long, sorry):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbE6YqbMJ4A

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 01, 2019, 11:20:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkAMNFKjds4&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkAMNFKjds4&feature=youtu.be)


The Moron level continued (ha ha).


Moron level of comprehension: (Don Smith)
(As per Benitez in 1914)
This stuff is only a hundred years old.
The device can be used to charge any number of other devices without discharging itself...



7 minutes in.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 01, 2019, 11:49:41 PM
.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 02, 2019, 12:45:05 AM
Hi Itsu,

Yes, your conclusions are correct, many thanks for doing the tests. The variation in field strength to explain
the change in brightness for the stacked coils was also a possible option (and the EM field surely changes
with the satellite coils height but not significantly in this present setup).   

Your 3 satellite coils surely have a high unloaded Q, hence their loaded Q may still remain high when the load
is a nonlinear one like a LED bulb. 

If their loaded Q remains say 60, the 3 dB bandwidth (B) of the receiving LC tanks would be B = 180 kHz/60 = 3 kHz 
so no wonder that a 10-13 kHz shift in resonance due to the stacked (closely coupled) position there was no enough
induced energy available in them to light the LEDs, the coils got offtuned.   

Gyula 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 02, 2019, 12:59:35 AM
Hi Itsu,

Yes, your conclusions are correct, many thanks for doing the tests. The variation in field strength to explain
the change in brightness for the stacked coils was also a possible option (and the EM field surely changes
with the satellite coils height but not significantly in this present setup).   

Your 3 satellite coils surely have a high unloaded Q, hence their loaded Q may still remain high when the load
is a nonlinear one like a LED bulb. 

If their loaded Q remains say 60, the 3 dB bandwidth (B) of the receiving LC tanks would be B = 180 kHz/60 = 3 kHz 
so no wonder that a 10-13 kHz shift in resonance due to the stacked (closely coupled) position there was no enough
induced energy available in them to light the LEDs, the coils got offtuned.   

Gyula
At last!  that's why I use a tuning method.  Have another look at my pics and you'll see I use a ferrite rod (as used in early crystal sets) to re-tune the coils. They can be re-tuned in a couple of seconds.  I was waiting for your results to see if I was correct or if there was something else going on.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 02, 2019, 09:42:07 AM

Gyula,

ok,  so all "effects" seen are still within the normal to be expected results.

Just thinking out loud here, but could this split resonance point during (over)coupling cause some kind of avalanche effect?



A.king21,

so you have every coil (how many?) (re)tuned via a ferrite rod?
I have 8 coils right now, that are many rods already, let alone when using hundreds of coils.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 02, 2019, 10:28:19 AM
Hi Itsu,

Well, the split resonance point found due to the mutual coupling sounds an unwanted situation here because
it represents offtuned satellite LC circuits.  The goal is tuning all coupled LC circuits to the same resonant frequency.
I do not know whether 'avalanche effect' may come about under the split resonance case, have never heard about
such with mutually coupled LC circuits, not even with carefully adjusted ones which are tuned exactly to the same
resonant frequency. 
Claims like 'sympathetic resonance' or 'phase conjugate mirroring' ought to be proved to bring extra output energy
in this TX-RX resonant LC circuits discussed here.  Of course, nothing can be proved via the web or by videos...  ::)
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 02, 2019, 11:47:13 AM
Hi Itsu,

Well, the split resonance point found due to the mutual coupling sounds an unwanted situation here because
it represents off tuned satellite LC circuits.  The goal is tuning all coupled LC circuits to the same resonant frequency.
I do not know whether 'avalanche effect' may come about under the split resonance case, have never heard about
such with mutually coupled LC circuits, not even with carefully adjusted ones which are tuned exactly to the same
resonant frequency. 
Claims like 'sympathetic resonance' or 'phase conjugate mirroring' ought to be proved to bring extra output energy
in this TX-RX resonant LC circuits discussed here.  Of course, nothing can be proved via the web or by videos...  ::)
Gyula
Gyula I'm not so sure about that, as being true, My dear friend Nelson Rocha has clearly really excelled in that
field and one or two others know or knew a thing or two one being Adrian Guska and others I#m told are no longer with us thanks to those from the dark side. The question is will we all drown in a sea of melted polar ice and permafrost
or will we permanently destroy everything living with atomic radiation before DISCLOSURE occurs?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 02, 2019, 12:00:09 PM
Hi Itsu,
  The goal is tuning all coupled LC circuits to the same resonant frequency.
  Of course, nothing can be proved via the web or by videos...  ::)
Gyula

Realistic ???
All of them fine tuned coils ???
Yes.

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 02, 2019, 12:46:35 PM




A.king21,

so you have every coil (how many?) (re)tuned via a ferrite rod?
I have 8 coils right now, that are many rods already, let alone when using hundreds of coils.


Itsu


I have about 4 that I can retune within a second or two, the rest are normal. I haven't even used the variable capacitors yet because I am satisfied with the progress and am moving on to the grounding situation. Look at my posts on electrostatic induction. But the ferrite ones are also tuned with capacitors.  the ferrite is just a fine adjustment mostly.  It's a mix and match situation to get resonance within a minute then I can move on with other experiments. This is just crystal set technology where you can tune by moving a ferrite rod in and out of a coil in addition to using  variable and or fixed capacitors. I messed with crystal sets a lot as a kid so this is just second nature to me. But real power resonant transmission is new to me  -  but the same principle of tuning.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 02, 2019, 01:38:34 PM
Watch this it's not just induction. this is something else it's technique some have.

Don Smith was a show man and exhibitor Meaning
He showed you what he wanted you to see, and made a living out of it.

What i'm saying is use that this Tesla device! produce it for your self!
but please cut out the 'show time' BS, it's not nice!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 02, 2019, 01:48:39 PM
.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 02, 2019, 02:30:49 PM
Gyula I'm not so sure about that, as being true, My dear friend Nelson Rocha has clearly really excelled in that
field and one or two others know or knew a thing or two one being Adrian Guska and others I#m told are no longer with us thanks to those from the dark side. The question is will we all drown in a sea of melted polar ice and permafrost
or will we permanently destroy everything living with atomic radiation before DISCLOSURE occurs?
Hi AG,
You would need to clarify what you are not sure in as being true?  Did you mean the split resonance occuring ? Something else?

Anyway, I do not rule out the possible usefulness of split resonance between mutually coupled LC circuits, all I meant was that the receiver coils in this setup are said to be tuned to the same frequency, no offtuning are allowed, otherwise energy transfer suffers.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 02, 2019, 03:18:41 PM
Hi AG,
You would need to clarify what you are not sure in as being true?  Did you mean the split resonance occuring ? Something else?

Anyway, I do not rule out the possible usefulness of split resonance between mutually coupled LC circuits, all I meant was that the receiver coils in this setup are said to be tuned to the same frequency, no offtuning are allowed, otherwise energy transfer suffers.

Gyula
WITH OUT PREJUDICE
 hI Gyula, i'm not sure if that is a 'trade name or not' I think we are really talking about radiated magnetic resonance in an impulse form in reality here but since Mr Friedrich hasn't shown any circuits or scope shots that produce any real 'power' from his negative magnetic impulsing technique which is what both Mr Friedrich and John badini 'appear' as far as i know been promoting here unless i might be mistaken by mr friedrich's confusing statements on this thread because if he could prove some worth of power produced and i mean at least over 100 watts I could well be persuaded to buy a device at a reasonable competitive price of course. Oh and with out the magna-carta (style) inquisition questionnaire Mr Friedrich appears to address me with, would be nice.

Does that answer your question ?
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 02, 2019, 04:37:58 PM
AG,
I can see here that English is not your native tongue. So now I realize that some of the translation is not getting through to us here. I think it goes both ways in you also not understanding what some of us have written.

As for Don, do you know anything about Don making a living? Don was retired from many years as a scientist. In retirement he helped out his local school and taught high school science. I guess that is what you mean by making a living out of teaching kids what they wanted to see??? Everything else he did in free energy research was after that where he didn't need an income. He was an old man and was tinkering around like many of you guys. He didn't sell to the public. He made copies of his book and CD which wasn't worth the time he spent on doing that. So your claim is rejected. People made deals with him, but you no nothing of those deals as they were private.
Yes he showed you what he wanted you see, and so does everyone showing anything. There was no living made out of that, but it was to help people. Thousands of people all around the world have benefitted from that and never paid him anything.

Now maybe your comments here have been lost in translation again and you are saying something positive about Don. It doesn't appear that way with the words as written. So in that case we just can't understand you AG. Like what do you mean by: "What i'm saying is use that this Tesla device!"??? This translation into English doesn't say anything. Do you mean use this Tesla device? Seems obvious from the next phrase. But what does "cut out the 'show time'" not nice comments refer to? Who are you referring to?

Watch this it's not just induction. this is something else it's technique some have.

Don Smith was a sow man and exhibitor Meaning
He showed you what he wanted you to see, and made a living out of it.

What i'm saying is use that this Tesla device! produce it for your self!
but please cut out the 'show time' BS, it's not nice!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 02, 2019, 05:12:30 PM
You guys may joke and say these words in the hope that people reading will just believe you, but I think most will realize your games. You both lie about these things here when you say such things. I have shown many such things over the years and even recently. I have shown many videos and meter readings in video and pictures, but that would never satisfy you guys anyway. I have played those games with people like you for years and in the end they just said what I have been saying all along, you can't prove anything over the internet. Yet they will readily believe a disprove claim. Double standard people! This becomes a deception to everyone. You can't have it both ways.
Again, you refuse to admit that all we can do here is prove things to ourselves in the real world. Your game is up disinfo people. I have only set out to help people in the real world. I am not trying to get people to believe my claims but merely help them to prove things to themselves. They may prove the same things I claim but they may experience more (as many have).
Now I have shown such things, more importantly, in the real world with real people who have real names and faces and live real lives. What do we know about any of you in the real world? How many people are paid to troll these mostly useless forums to spread disinfo and unscientific practices and rumors?
How have I not shown any circuits? The last 2 weeks has been all about the basic series and parallel tank circuits. If you need me to draw that out, as others already have, then where have you been AG? Certainly not in this discussion then. Other circuits have been merely adding a gate driver between the tank and the frequency generator. Just a fast gate driver with two caps across the positive and negative terminals according to the datasheet. Further discussion has been the SSG kind of circuits for motors. And I actually posted the detailed schematic the other day. So this is a lie AG. If you go back to the Selfish Circuits or Loving Paths video that has been so often referenced in this discussion you will see scope shots and meters, and you will find many more videos in that series and since then on my youtube channel. You are trying to bait me into trying to prove a claim over the internet. I have shown what you say I haven't so this is deliberately false. So once again, people can see who you are here and what you are trying to do. This almost seems bipolar to me, as you jump around back in forth in this sort of thing. I guess it works to confuse some people. Again, this is what a troll does, in provoking a reaction to get more information.
I have been anything but confusing. I have taken the time to clearly articulate each point and clarify misunderstandings and answer every question even when the question had been answered several times. You evidently just don't read what I have shared and then act like I never wrote or shared something. Just go back a day or two and look at the same schematic posted twice. Maybe you just were out to lunch. laughing out loud!
Well, where were you when I was giving rides in my boat? That was a little more than 100W. It took 350A @ 132V to move that boat 7mph with the forklift motor. And only 50A @ 24 to move it 5mph with my motor. I ran that for three years by merely rotating the batteries back and forth. Nothing advanced, nothing hidden. People could hook of the meters and see everything. Also lawnmowers, other boats, fans, generators, cars, etc. Oh, but that was in the real world. I didn't try to make some animation in the cyberworld here.
I am not interested in selling you something. I was trying to help you. But I don't even think that you are as doubtful as you come across. Or G. You guys know the truth of some of this already. So what is the real deal with you guys? Just fishing for more information by provocation? I've seen that for years. Just like that link you sent the other day about the fan where the guy knew exactly what he was doing and that the fan did not produce the results that he faked. So you guys in word disregard everything I say and act like you assume that it is not real. But I'm not convinced of the act, and probably others are not. So I guess my goal here is more than just to help people experience free energy independence for themselves, but in doing that I have to expose you guys and all your fallacies and diversions. Maybe this is all just fun and games. Maybe someone pays you to do that. We cannot be sure of anything here in fantasy land.

You actually been the inquisitor in all this AG. When I pointed out when you denied mentioning grounding in regards to A.King and I gave the exact details you just replied with "No Comment." So my point there stands. You were the inquisitor fabricating stories and insulting A.King for no reason. Now you continue to do this to me as you have from the beginning. I don't care or take it personally, but I want everyone to see exactly what his happening here. These kinds of disinfo tactics have worked for years on the groups to keep people from benefiting in this research because what you people are doing here is not research. It is merely attempts to try and disprove any OU claims while trying to suck out information from the claimants. It actually works so long as people like me are not exposing it.

 WITH MUCH PREJUDICE AG says:
hI Gyula, i'm not sure if that is a 'trade name or not' I think we are really talking about radiated magnetic resonance in an impulse form in reality here but since Mr Friedrich hasn't shown any circuits or scope shots that produce any real 'power' from his negative magnetic impulsing technique which is what both Mr Friedrich and John badini 'appear' as far as i know been promoting here unless i might be mistaken by mr friedrich's confusing statements on this thread because if he could prove some worth of power produced and i mean at least over 100 watts I could well be persuaded to buy a device at a reasonable competitive price of course. Oh and with out the magna-carta (style) inquisition questionnaire Mr Friedrich appears to address me with, would be nice.

Does that answer your question ?
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 02, 2019, 05:43:09 PM
G, claims go both ways Mr. Double standard  8)  ;) You can't even prove to us that you don't believe this. All such talk is meaningless. Obviously the point of these forums is to prove things out. But you just keep assuming that prove can be justified over the internet when it is only proof to the individual in the real world that can happen. For all your 'expert' persona you demonstrate the most unscientific practices to everyone. You continuously assume that something has been proven here and there by some claim that you arbitrarily believe, well not arbitrarily but that supports your bias. But when another claim is shared you inconsistently disbelieve it and even mock it as you do here.
Sympathetic resonance is a common idea, especially in music, but also in this research. But just start with the piano as I mentioned. It is very easy to prove to yourself if you have any interest in doing anything in the real world. You already know this so this is just a game. Sound is no different than what we are doing so it is more than likely that this can happen here. It would be more appropriate to mock the disbelief of sympathetic resonance in this research.
Not one of your words "can be proved via the web". You refused to even tell us what you believe or what you meant by that one line that toyed with people that you may be open to OU. So far you have done nothing but try to explain things by mainstream basic theory. And that would be fine if you didn't manifestly contradict yourself and play all these games with these people.
So only as anyone uses a double standard in these ways, that is acting like everyone ought to believe some claims while then putting the onus on other people making claims, then I will respond and expose this fallacy. That includes people doing that with making OU claims while disbelieving counter claims. There is no bias here. What you guys are doing is not science. It is CONFIRMATION BIAS. I expose this in the next video. The confirmation bias has been repeatedly exposed and is firmly settled with everyone. So these manifest examples of it are deliberate disinfo.
Again, there is nothing wrong with taking Itsu's claims in words and pictures as something to personally consider, but to assume that you have some correct understand of what he was doing under the circumstances is mere assumption. Notice that many such claims are instantly believed with out followup questions to even try to prevent mistaken notions. But the moment something is shown that seems out of place we have hesitation. This proves confirmation bias, because why wouldn't you equally question everything? Remember the guy that joked after my first post here and said, what about the wires under the table. So what about that? You can never know if someone is boosting their claims or deliberately making something fail in the same way. So this has an appearance of confirmation for or against, but as we see all the games you guys play here and all over these forums we have a high level of probability that people are intent on disproving any claims at any cost. It is probably equal in just as many people faking OU claims as those trying to fake their disproof of real OU systems. Both examples destroy people's faith, waste money and time. So round and round you all go in your confirmation bias and it is all be entertainment. But you see, there are many good souls watching and learning from all of this. They will not bother to write anything, or maybe say something once as some have. They are not only learning the truth for their own benefit but also they learn about these kinds of disinfo games and how to detect them. And it is vastly important to understand what is going on here...

Claims like 'sympathetic resonance' or 'phase conjugate mirroring' ought to be proved to bring extra output energy in this TX-RX resonant LC circuits discussed here.  Of course, nothing can be proved via the web or by videos...  ::)
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on July 02, 2019, 05:58:48 PM

Hi Rick,


thanks for the info, I get it. :)

Mario

Yes that subject of what is happening in the battery is too involved to get into on the forums (and it requires the use of words and models that I am undecided in at this time). As for the idea, you are converting the negative to positive through a capacitor. So you can see the way we do it with the cap pulser before the battery, and you can think that through and do something similar on the front end. This would be like using various RC or even LC filters like you find with bandpass bypass, etc. I don't usually do that and having posted any schematics myself so you are on your own.

The idea to understand, as has been recently brought up here, is the DSE or Don Smith Effect. The idea is that the capacitor is a blocking device. More importantly it allows for replicating the energy on the front side on the back side. So the OU demonstration Don gave, that most people completely missed, was that he had double the arcing from the input when you consider the regular arcing to the one side of the plate was about 1" and then when he added a ground terminal an inch away from the other side plate it arced another 1" and effectively doubled or duplicated the energy. Now the arc was a real load on both sides. This is an essential process with Don Smith systems.

The point here is that the capacitor replicates the energy on the output side, and this case the replication becomes positive energy and results in current flow under the circumstances. So once you understand this you can build the appropriate filter(s) so do the same on the front end. The same is true with doing this third stage process to power loads with positive energy.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 02, 2019, 06:07:42 PM
It is not realistic in the sense that you would try and set something like this up as some of you are trying to do. This is just giving you an easy thing to do show what Don Smith said that if you filled a room full of coils you could multiply the process out again and again. I showed 18 guys this in the second meeting. I did the video to show the other 18 guys in the first meeting what they missed as I didn't have time to set it up in the first meeting.

It is not realistic for high power generation as we are not showing this a something that you are going to network all the outputs together. This is just analogous to radio transmission. As I said, you would do a secondary within the primary and do 1/4 wave or harmonic relationships. This is just a basic tool to learn resonance and impedance relationships. And I just had to be dramatic about just what you could do with even this kit because everyone expects this from me. I had to do the big boat, lawnmower, etc., because no one else was going to.

No, only the primary was tuned. They were not positioned carefully at all. There were no variable caps other than on the primary.
This is really for my customers who already have the kit and realize that this would be possible to do if they had that many coils. But I do not recommend going to such efforts to try and prove this to yourself. We can do much more with a few coils than even everything you see in that picture/video. The goal of the kit was just to get started and give you something tangible. Just experiencing resonance was my main objective. I was amazed that so many people never really understood basic resonance. And that is why I did this kit. Secondly, to focus in on the gains in voltage in a series resonant circuit. You can even see one guy here having a hard time believing that the voltage across the coil or capacitor was much higher than the input voltage. The next thing was to see this somehow be extracted into real loads. But that is another separate matter which has only been shown in the simplest way. It was never my intention to make this an OU device, but rather a tool to learn the sensitive relationships. And that worked very well as everyone has shared. I did give advanced information on how to proceed from there, but it wasn't my objective to overwhelm people with that. If I had shared all that then people, as we see right here on this thread, would jump to trying to get high output right away and pass over the fundamentals. And then I would fail in one of my main goals, and that is to keep this all safe. Many of you are reckless and obviously do not know what you are doing. You may one day kill yourself because of this recklessness because you didn't take the time to start from the beginning and work your way up to the higher power systems. So if you actually do what AG said, and jump into a higher power Tesla coil like the pictures he showed, there is a possibility that you could be killed. It is no joke no matter how much these guys want to play with your minds and expose you to danger. Those of us working in this research have a responsibility to protect others and not encourage reckless or unscientific practices as we see here. 

Realistic ???
All of them fine tuned coils ???
Yes.

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 02, 2019, 06:27:21 PM
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt11.html (http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt11.html)
 " the Joseph Newman Motor.....

Dr.  Roger Hastings.....  800% efficiency...

 with 1,5 Watt power input ,the back emf exceeded 80000 Watts.  ...."

Peak efficiency/average efficiency. ?  No/quarter/half/full load condition

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 02, 2019, 07:16:54 PM
Hi AG,
You would need to clarify what you are not sure in as being true?  Did you mean the split resonance occuring ? Something else?

Anyway, I do not rule out the possible usefulness of split resonance between mutually coupled LC circuits, all I meant was that the receiver coils in this setup are said to be tuned to the same frequency, no offtuning are allowed, otherwise energy transfer suffers.

Gyula
then Yes it is the exact same frequency !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 02, 2019, 07:19:39 PM

"Rick: It was never my intention to make this an OU device, but rather a tool to learn the sensitive relationships."
 :o
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 02, 2019, 07:38:06 PM
What is wrong with that? The original kit was only meant to teach Faraday's laws and experience Resonance inductive coupling along with a crystal radio. That was good enough to be useful. I took that much further, and greatly multiplied the experiments, especially by adding the additional coils and one wire output. I decided part way through to have some focus of showing the gains possible. But yes, the primary focus was to make this a tool to learn about the very sensitive relationships between the coils, which is what Itsu appears to be trying to do here. Why would that call for a  :o Maybe you are not aware of the history here, or the importance of keeping things at a safe level in trying to protect people from hurting themselves as so many have done.

"Rick: It was never my intention to make this an OU device, but rather a tool to learn the sensitive relationships."
 :o
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 02, 2019, 08:20:48 PM
Rick
This thread is : confirmation-of-ou-devices
                              and-claims

 I'm anyhow glad that you put the safety first.

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 02, 2019, 08:42:19 PM
Rick,
I assume that you have built an OU device. How did you determine that it is OU?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 02, 2019, 08:45:40 PM
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt11.html (http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt11.html)
 " the Joseph Newman Motor.....

Dr.  Roger Hastings.....  800% efficiency...

 with 1,5 Watt power input ,the back emf exceeded 80000 Watts.  ...."

Peak efficiency/average efficiency. ?  No/quarter/half/full load condition
Half wave would cancel it self out as it would be 2 negative peeks or 2 positive peeks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 02, 2019, 09:08:24 PM
Half wave would cancel it self out as it would be 2 negative peeks or 2 positive peeks.

If such a high back emf what was as forward emf to measure  ? No given value. !
Was it only an arithmetical  Henrypeak-to-Wattpeak conversion by Dr. Hastings ?
80000/1,5= > 53.000 or > 5300000% inrush/outrush peak ratio
How much Tesla-pulse force for given Volt-Ampere/Frequency input  ?!
( do you think in german Max-Planck- and Fraunhofer-Institutions they are not interested about extreme "divergenz" ? )
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=WO&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2009124783&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 02, 2019, 09:27:57 PM
Arne,
Thank you for saying one positive thing. Safety is far more important than getting free energy. For who can calculate a death or severe injury?
I never said it wasn't an OU device. I said I never intended it to be an OU claim. I even wanted to not use those words. But then it became impossible to avoid the subject when dealing with resonance. So then I enlarged upon that subject with the kit.

Now there is a problem with the different definitions of the words Over Unity and I doubt that everyone would agree on those terms. Some people want more than over unity, and in this thread I think you all expect self-running. Now I certainly did not make the kit to be a self-runner. But I did get into the way of doing that the proper way (as in having several secondary coils in the right special relationships from the primary so that they are all transmitters and receiver coils) where the input could actually go to zero with the right phasing. You guys are trying to do it the wrong way with the wrong parts, but you still may even be able to do it that way.

You guys were all talking about this kit long before I came here to help out. I told A.King not to promote my kits on these forums as they just bring out some of the clowns who want to play games. The other forum he did this turned out really bad, but now they have apologized and invited me back. So I didn't come here to push anything or any product on anyone. I was welcomed and have been helpful and to the point. I gave you all what you want. And if that is not enough you can watch my videos for meters or whathaveyou. People can even come to meetings and see such things in the real world. Tell me where you find that these days? Even some of these people have shared what they saw, as well as others who have the kit. Therefore I have satisfied the improper conditions of a proper claim of OU on this thread, one that assumes you can make a proof claim by video, pictures and words. I did that while expressly titling the video that you cannot prove OU over the internet so that no one would get the wrong impression from me (as I have said for years the same thing). As I said over and over again, that there is a double standard with you guys. You folks will readily believe anything that supposedly supports mainstream claims and anything that appears to go against OU, but you do not believe the same quality or nature of a claim or that appears to support and OU claim. This is deceptive. Why is a negative claim to be believed without sufficient proof, while a positive one automatically disbelieved (or where people demand more than they would for a negative claim). How many times do I have to say this before anyone says, yeah Rick, that is logical??? Again, no claim should be accepted as fact or proven, and anyone giving such indication should be corrected. We should merely thank someone for their contribution and then try and confirm to ourselves these things. Nothing wrong with testimony and claims. But to assume they are proven is not science. It is just disinformation resulting in endless nonsense.

Rick
This thread is : confirmation-of-ou-devices
                              and-claims

 I'm anyhow glad that you put the safety first.

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 02, 2019, 09:57:22 PM
Danger Danger Danger.
Yesterday I got my first mains power electric shock in five years from experimenting with the DSE. It was totally unexpected as I was looping the output to the input but accidently touched one of the capacitors. Luckily it was only a 450 volt 4.7uf motor run capacitor. I verified the output with a  220 volt  mains bulb and it lit for maybe half a second and then dimmed out.
The input was 4 x 1.2 volt nimhs in series, charged to about 5 volts. I am not posting the circuit or giving any more details out, nor am I claiming OU.
What I am claiming is that the DSE IS LETHAL.  Don't go anywhere near it unless you are a qualified person and wear protective clothing at all times.


I realise why Rick is ultra cautious now.  This stuff is no joke.  It will KILL YOU if you make a mistake.
  The resonance kit is safe  if you follow the book instructions.
Do not use an earth ground.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 02, 2019, 10:05:29 PM
Hi Itsu,

Well, the split resonance point found due to the mutual coupling sounds an unwanted situation here because
it represents offtuned satellite LC circuits.  The goal is tuning all coupled LC circuits to the same resonant frequency.
I do not know whether 'avalanche effect' may come about under the split resonance case, have never heard about
such with mutually coupled LC circuits, not even with carefully adjusted ones which are tuned exactly to the same
resonant frequency. 
Claims like 'sympathetic resonance' or 'phase conjugate mirroring' ought to be proved to bring extra output energy
in this TX-RX resonant LC circuits discussed here.  Of course, nothing can be proved via the web or by videos...  ::)
Gyula

Gyula,

yes, i would agree that the goal would be to tune all coupled LC circuits to the same resonant frequency,
but looking at the picture in Seaad his post #890, many of those coils are so close they are bound to influence
each other and thus detune each other.

Anyway, the term avalanche is not quite what i mean, so probably wrong here.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 02, 2019, 10:09:12 PM
Hoppy, were you on vacation or something??? I am not aware of anyone who has given more OU demonstrations publicly.
As for determining OU, you have to start by telling us what is OU? Anything over unity is OU. But what is unity? I'm not playing with words here, but people are vague on these words.
I do not rely on meters to evaluate my outputs over a few minutes like so many people do. But I can use meters, every type of meter that is used pretty much, to get a feel for where something is at. You can only really do this when you are experienced and run a system for weeks at a time. This is especially important when you are using batteries. And my tests have to last for years because the first premise of my company is "Battery longevity", so I refuse to promote Bedini's destructive (so-called) Tesla switch because even though you can get it to self-charge, you end up ruining your batteries. We even made one of my battery chargers do that.

So what I am looking for is not merely some 5 minute test like these Bedini people usually limited themselves to under my observation. Since I am looking at these things for production purposes and want to know the long-term affect and ensure stability (which are two of my requirements) I look at tests over the long-haul. So if it is battery system, I have to see it over more than days. It needs to be months or even years. I did that with the 26' boat and Porsche for example. The boat had and OU device while the Porsche had just a beefted up warp 9 forklift motor. The Porsche only had the OU system in it for a very short time because they all turned on me at the last big convention... So the one boat here (as there were three OU boat's I did--actually 4 if you include the watercraft) was OU in the sense that I continually rotated around the batteries for three years. That was not automatic. I had two big Anderson connectors I just swapped around whenever the primary went down. The purpose of that experiment was to show everyone that you could do this with the basic setup. Two of my customers actually did this before I did on very large sale boats and went around the world. So I had to at least do something like that for everyone to see. Now the watercraft I showed in a video running on the lake while powering a 100W LED very bright. That did not have the gate driver so it is much better now. But it had the option of either having the light or charging a second battery that could be rotated in the same way as the big boat. Same motor, and same circuit except with Mosfets instead of transistors.

Of course I had meters on the big boat so I could see when to rotate. Now we have the automatic rotation using a latching contactor that only draws power when you switch. Of course I looked at the spike and magnetic radiation and everything you would want to look at. But I am a real-world guy and I get use these in the real world once it is working. This is all very old news.

The motors are mentioned here as additional claims. I still don't expect people to believe any demonstration even in person. So I only expect people to prove things to themselves.

As for the Resonance kit, I do use all the meters people use. I could get into all those discussions but it is pointless at this point because people are ignoring the fundamentals that you need to start with. I am in the process of making a major presentation over the holidays so I will address these things in the proper order. The problem is that the meters are measuring the wasted energy and not the total energy. That is fundamental. So everything is looked at backwards. It's like looking at mosfet specs and seeing power dissipation ratings and thinking that is the limit through them. Again, the power measurements do not tell you if you are just using the inductor by itself for other purposes or if you use it to drive a motor and/or as a transmitter. So when no one cares about driving a motor with their amplifier boost system, I drive a motor also and get double the output than is admitted. When they only want to drive a motor I drive the motor and also get the electric output. The power meter is not showing you what you can do with the circuit or how much load you can drive. That is all the huge dirty little secret. I am showing here and with the motors that you can do many kinds of loads that add up WITH POWER METERS on the end loads, to be OU or more output than the fake laws are claimed to limit you. Who made such laws? Was it given by special revelation from God? No. By the slavemasters of our world.

Anyway, you can use meters if you know what they are and their limitations, as well as how they can sometimes change your results (as we saw with Itsu the other day). Inline ampere meters can really change the output in the motor systems, but they can also show that it is not amperage that is charging the battery. So the meters can also baffle the G's of this world, and they don't want to talk about such readings. Meters can show you an estimation of where you are at, like when we see zero voltage AC or DC on the regular LF meters, and that shows me when it is in tune. But I don't use such meters with HF and I use scopes all the time. I also measure various radiation with different meters. The meters show me that I can add more and more loads where no one else does. Here a transformer, there a capacitor, over there a coil. Here a bulb, there an electret. It's crazy how much energy is deliberately overlooked. And it is very laborious for me to go over these super basics here considering that fact. Once you understand the themes you will understand what that means. After several Aha! moments/experiences.

Rick,
I assume that you have built an OU device. How did you determine that it is OU?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 02, 2019, 10:14:42 PM
To ==> itsu   Not ==> Rick
 #900
Rick quote : ......... No, only the primary was tuned. They were not positioned carefully at all. There were no variable caps other than on the primary.
This is really for my customers who already have the kit and realize that this would be possible to do if they had that many coils. But I do not recommend going to such efforts to try and prove this to yourself. We can do much more with a few coils than even everything you see in that picture/video. ........

 Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 02, 2019, 10:29:51 PM
Some people laugh at this stuff and think it all a joke. They slap together a bigger Don Smith setup and really hurt themselves it they actually approach doing it right. I get all the calls and stories. Many years back I had a best friend who was in charge of supervising power in Northern Canada. He shared stories with me about seeing men actually vaporize in front of him. Those kinds of stories always instilled in me that safety is the first rule of the shop. Safety of the batteries and biological safety as well. I have knowledge of what many Russians have done with massive Tesla coils and the radiation they have exposed themselves to. Many die from this after working with hundreds of thousands of watts. Crazy recklessness. I have shown the large coils at some of my meetings that can be used for grid size systems that would require massive transformers as big as a house. There is a lot of things you have to do to set up such systems for even the simplest testing. It is no joke to play around with even fairly small setups. A relatively small Tesla coil can result in powering 5 kw loads with the additional collection and wave shaping processes. So they can cause significant harm to you if you somehow become part of those processes and a conduit to ground. Most of you may not be aware of this, but I sometimes show the Tesla Cold Fire information at my meetings. Tesla said 100 years ago that we would all be using cell phones as we are and also said we would all have Tesla cold fire baths. No need for water when we can use a tesla coil at 500,000V to 1,000,000V. Shows a man and a bunny experiencing it. This is what Tesla did and what some do and didn't need to sleep more than 2 hours a night. Good luck in ever passing that through regulations. Can you imagine what would happen if parts broke down and you had some serious amperage? Interesting and dangerous stuff. At the last CDA Idaho Convention in 2011 I had a guy who made me a big Tesla coil and he tried to kill me with it... So I take these things seriously. I only knew a few guys to survive lightning strikes. Once you have close calls like this you just have to warn others.

Danger Danger Danger.
Yesterday I got my first mains power electric shock in five years from experimenting with the DSE. It was totally unexpected as I was looping the output to the input but accidently touched one of the capacitors. Luckily it was only a 450 volt 4.7uf motor run capacitor. I verified the output with a  220 volt  mains bulb and it lit for maybe half a second and then dimmed out.
The input was 4 x 1.2 volt nimhs in series, charged to about 5 volts. I am not posting the circuit or giving any more details out, nor am I claiming OU.
What I am claiming is that the DSE IS LETHAL.  Don't go anywhere near it unless you are a qualified person and wear protective clothing at all times.


I realise why Rick is ultra cautious now.  This stuff is no joke.  It will KILL YOU if you make a mistake.
  The resonance kit is safe  if you follow the book instructions.
Do not use an earth ground.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 02, 2019, 10:33:45 PM
Rick,
I assume that you have built an OU device. How did you determine that it is OU?

Hi Hoppy. I have watched a number of Rick's YouTube videos in the past, and he invariably leaves
out one or more important basic measurements which would show the actual efficiency of the overall circuit
while (sometimes at least) implying it is OU. For example, he may measure an input battery voltage, but not measure the
average or RMS input current from the battery and that sort of thing, while indicating or hinting he believes it is OU. Of course
the actual efficiency will almost certainly be less than 100% if measured properly.  I personally have never seen any
claim (or hint) of OU by Rick which he backed up with proper measurements or a proper demonstration.
I am not at all trying to be negative, but just stating what I have observed.

I have done experiments with coils and resonance and taking off power using multiple receiver coils
tuned to the resonant frequency of the transmitter coil, and I personally have not seen 'OU' with such
a setup. In my experiments the power from the transmitter coil divides amongst the multiple receiver coil circuits,
as would be expected, and the total output power is less than the input power. If there is a way around this expected behavior,
I wasn't able to find it.

Regarding Don Smith, I only ever saw one video demonstration where Don Smith actually demonstrated powering a load with
one of his claimed OU devices, (his briefcase device powering a bunch of bulbs) and the output voltage
to the bank of bulbs was steadily dropping over time. Don Smith didn't leave his device connected to the bulbs
long enough to be able to determine if anything really unusual might really be going on there, but his small briefcase device
was able to power a large bank of incandescent 120V light bulbs for a while, which was still interesting to see. If he had a
small bank of batteries in his briefcase, it would have been quite a large current draw from the batteries to power all those
120V light bulbs. Don Smith didn't show how large of a battery or batteries he had inside his briefcase in that demo.
Basically Don Smith's devices were never properly demonstrated in the public that I know of. Anything that comes from
Don Smith is therefore quite questionable, as many people no doubt are already aware of.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 02, 2019, 10:49:35 PM
I think you may be again taking me out of context by directing to Itsu. My setup was not ideal, but just very basic. I said in the video that you would want the variable capacitors on each coil to properly do this. Depending on your loads you have to adjust for frequency changes. Now I have not at all got into showing how to properly convert the frequency down, so that the LED bulbs or capacitors are NOT AT ALL collecting and using the available energy at such a high frequency. These loads are like collecting energy from 1khz frequencies or less. They cannot respond that fast. And I will share a point as one of the themes next week along these lines in relation to capacitor charging and high frequencies. You guys have no idea how this works because you just think all capacitors are the same and respond a certain way. You think only in terms of Volts and Amps and have no experience in real world technology in these matters. My hint for you to start you off in one aspect of this is step charging. I'll be enlarging upon this this under the theme and idea of negative differential resistance (which really is not an appropriate name for that process) where capacitors also have very nonlinear characteristics. That's about as far as I need to go to open up many doors for you... But for the kit and basic learning we just use low frequency parts which purposely give low outputs.

itsu
 #900
Rick quote : ......... No, only the primary was tuned. They were not positioned carefully at all. There were no variable caps other than on the primary.
This is really for my customers who already have the kit and realize that this would be possible to do if they had that many coils. But I do not recommend going to such efforts to try and prove this to yourself. We can do much more with a few coils than even everything you see in that picture/video. ........

 Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 03, 2019, 12:00:25 AM
VOID OF CONTEXT,
You indeed misunderstand my context. I only show videos for my customers that already have these parts. So the meters are only showing here and there when it is important to consider the point of the video. Many thousands of people already have OU and are not like you guys purporting to be still trying to find it. I don't try and prove OU in any of my videos. Because how could I? Why would I expect anyone to believe such through a video? But my customers actually have the same parts and often I show them upgrades or new points to consider. If you actually watched any of my videos you would know this so your comments are out of context and therefore false. If I was trying to prove OU I wouldn't do that in video, as you cannot do that. I merely show people in the real world. Don Smith actually did that, and I have several friends that witnessed such demonstrations. OU is not really a big deal that you guys make it out to be. The big propaganda here is always trying to give the impression that it is so difficult. I have spelled out many different ways you can do it. I have demonstrated these for years. Thousands of people all around the world have done the same. These forums are just hack jobs trying to deceive the public that it is impossible or so very hard. Even people open to the idea are crippled in thinking it is so hard.

I can imply OU, it is usually expected. But this doesn't mean I ever tried to prove it in a video. Again, I am ALWAYS speaking in a way for you to show yourself these things. What else can I do Mr. Void?

All my meters are true RMS meters. The things you are mentioning are all old news. I don't try and show the input and output in every video because that is long established. You can go back to earlier days. That is so basic level that people get bored with that. They want to learn about the specific point the video is about. Fair enough???

You don't know anything about these systems. What is 100% efficiency to you? I have a fan that takes x amount of power to produce x amount of rpm and cfms. Now I change one diode and run it at same x amount of power to produce same x amount of rpm and cfms. But there is one problem with your slanderous assumptions. I am charging another battery freely at the same time. This is very old news Mr. Void of history  ::) This is about 14 years old and many thousands of people are doing this all over the world. People now want more so that is what we are doing these days. You assume evil merely because you are biased and ignorant. That is not an insult but the fact. What right do you have to assume such things? Who can assume anything from a video? What is almost certainty to you? You are trying to be negative, and that is obvious. You are assuming I am trying to prove something in a video rather than trying to help my customers in very specific ways. You are just like so many superficial people applying your own agenda upon someone else and then misjudging them for that. That is a shame! You need to listen more and judge less. You may be so desperate for free energy that you don't bother to learn how it works or listen to what people are actually saying. I'm not a fool and don't try to presume upon people and expect them to believe something over the internet. My customers apply the information in the videos and are mostly satisfied. I'm not very satisfied with my videos, just saying.  :-\ Some of these customers have shared some of these points here. More are watching in silence.

Well we have no way of knowing what you have done in your experience. Not saying that you should believe any videos, but many videos show the opposite of what you said so I think it is fairly common knowledge that that is not universal experience. There is a difference to what we are doing here. I haven't been following enough but I'm sure Itsu has seen a difference from that at this point. Who knows. Again, I showed my customers in that video, and 18 of them in the real world at the meeting, that adding more coils did not actually bring the input down to 60ma and less without lowering the power output in any of the coils. Yes, when I did certain things it did increase in input in the primary. So you have to know what you are doing. You cannot make a universal claim about this, you can only take the agnostic approach.

As for Don's 1996 video you are talking about, that is not true. And the guy measuring that said so. It really wasn't a demonstration of OU because you didn't see how it worked. Now we know what he did, and a friend of mine was there and saw inside. Don later revealed that and most people still have not realized what he did because you assume without looking at the details... Anyway, proving OU at the time would have to allow people to see everything, and he didn't. All you could conclude from that was that it probably was OU. You could really only go by his word. Don knew what he was talking about and never showed me any signs of deceit. But then again, I have verified many of this systems and claims and teaching. Anyone who is familiar with OU systems knows that he was the most significant influence in all this research. There are thousands of Don Smith systems all around the world. I know this and that is my claim. I don't expect you to believe it.

Now Don did give one significant OU demonstration that people just didn't realize. And I show this all the time. He was showing the Don Smith Effect where the capacitor duplicates the energy. He had an 8000V probe that give an inch long arc to one side of a plate. This is a real load and can be used for many applications. Other loads could be in series with that as well. It takes x amount of energy to produce that load, just like it takes x amount of power to run a motor (and I double that output by also charging a battery). In the same way as doubling the energy in the motors, he then adds a ground terminal an inch away from the other side of the plate. This is unidirectional impulsing so it is not AC. It is not supposed to go through a thick capacitor. But yet another identical arc is on the other side from the plate to the terminal. So now we have doubling of power. Two inches of arcing. People watched those videos for years and never realized what that meant.  ::)  I give several demonstrations of this sort of thing at my meetings. So there you go people. Many of you have seen the video. I even did it in a video a few years back. You can do it yourself. They even made sure that the primary side was not grounded at all and was powered from a battery so that there was no ground looping.

So people, that is how simple these things are. You are looking for some convoluted system because you have been brainwashed into the mainstream convoluted systems and believed their propaganda that this is all so hard. You are overthinking it. Now you just have to know basic things to add the appropriate loads besides arcing. And guess what? There is more. We can use more processes and collect more energy at the same time. So does the "power" meter determine what we can do? Not at all. It is just the wasted energy in the closed loop.

As for Don's case, several of them did see inside and saw the small battery. But that again is a matter of testimony. The whole video is just a video and you can't really trust any video. It seems likely that it was not fake. I have some friends who were there so it is different for me than for you. But I can do that so I don't need to that to be proven anymore. But if you watched the video you would see that a 7AH battery cannot power 1000W for even 0.01 of a second. Most people, including all those at that meeting who said something, revealed that they had no experience with batteries under load. This is what I deal with all day long. I will give you the perfect example of what I come across. So we have a UPS and alarm system charger that allows you to keep your batteries for good and not have to replace them. So when we tested the UPS systems. UPS means uninterrupted power supplies, and are used for electronics that you don't want to be turned off when the power can go out. What we found was that their ratings were flat out lies. Even new 7AH batteries cannot power the UPS at all at the ratings/claims they make on the specifications. You cannot have a 7AH battery power a 1000W load at all. The instantaneous voltage drop on the battery would bring it way down past 10.5V so that the inverter would never even run. So as soon as the power would go out on a 1000W load it would be entirely useless. Same at 500W. Realistically you can run a 100W for a bit on a 7AH battery. Maybe just enough to press save on your computer before it dives before 10.5V.

So the guys didn't even know what they were talking about. The voltage drop on a 7AH battery would have brought it way done for starters. And it would have discharged the battery very fast and ruin it in a hurry. Believe, this is what we have done for 15 years here. You can try it yourself. So the guys didn't realize that and tried to make some calculations being ignorant of voltage drops and C rates of discharge. As the C rate is lowered the losses increase as well. So the greater the load the less efficiency you have. When I do my basic inverter demonstrations at my meetings I teach on these things because most people have no idea of the basics. So I have to start from the very beginning. So even with 220AH golf cart batteries at 12V I can hardly sustain a 3000W load of incandescent bulbs with a kwa home meter for more than a few minutes before the voltage drops lower than that allowed by the inverter. So 7AH doesn't give you enough to do anything and the UPS are a big lie. I'm not sure why people are not really upset about this. It's crazy.

Anyway, if you grant that it was a 7AH battery as people saw inside, or as Don said. Obviously the case was not heavy so there was no way a bunch of heavy batteries were in there. But if you were to hook it up to a 1000W load it would just never even come on. And it wouldn't even be able to do 100W load that long. Don brought that because people rather see a demonstration with a plug, etc. than learn how to make it.  :-\

Apparently he did run it for a long time after the video ended somewhere else. But then again, that is the testimony. But your comments are not true. He did leave it long enough. Go to Batteries plus and get a brand new 7AH battery with that month's date stamp and see for yourself. Try a UPS and you will see this. Then come back here and tells you how you were wrong in this. Maybe we will hear from you again Mr. Void. Maybe not.

So how is it that you leap from your mistaken comments to the conclusion that everything he says therefore questionable. Did you even watch all the video and hear what he said about the demonstration. I transcribed the video to make sure every word was understood. You have no right to dismiss "Anything that comes from Don Smith is therefore quite questionable". And then you add that as other people are aware. You are just another disinfo person. You have not proven anything and what you say doesn't even follow. You show you have no experience with loading batteries and therefore have no reason to say what you did. Again, go get a UPS and shows us all a video showing you power 1000W over that time period. You will just have to keep adding more and more batteries till it is bigger than the case. Oops! Void of context and Void of experience in matters you make prejudiced judgments.

Hi Hoppy. I have watched a number of Rick's YouTube videos in the past, and he invariably leaves
out one or more important basic measurements which would show the actual efficiency of the overall circuit while (sometimes at least) implying it is OU. For example, he may measure an input battery voltage, but not measure the average or RMS input current from the battery and that sort of thing, while indicating or hinting he believes it is OU. Of course the actual efficiency will almost certainly be less than 100% if measured properly.  I personally have never seen any claim (or hint) of OU by Rick which he backed up with proper measurements or a proper demonstration.
I am not at all trying to be negative, but just stating what I have observed.

I have done experiments with coils and resonance and taking off power using multiple receiver coils
tuned to the resonant frequency of the transmitter coil, and I personally have not seen 'OU' with such
a setup. In my experiments the power from the transmitter coil divides amongst the multiple receiver coil circuits, as would be expected, and the total output power is less than the input power. If there is a way around this expected behavior, I wasn't able to find it.

Regarding Don Smith, I only ever saw one video demonstration where Don Smith actually demonstrated powering a load with one of his claimed OU devices, (his briefcase device powering a bunch of bulbs) and the output voltage to the bank of bulbs was steadily dropping over time. Don Smith didn't leave his device connected to the bulbs long enough to be able to determine if anything really unusual might really be going on there, but his small briefcase device was able to power a large bank of incandescent 120V light bulbs for a while, which was still interesting to see. If he had a
small bank of batteries in his briefcase, it would have been quite a large current draw from the batteries to power all those 120V light bulbs. Don Smith didn't show how large of a battery or batteries he had inside his briefcase in that demo. Basically Don Smith's devices were never properly demonstrated in the public that I know of. Anything that comes from Don Smith is therefore quite questionable, as many people no doubt are already aware of.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 03, 2019, 12:25:31 AM
BTW: a nominal 1000 Watt load has as lamp 2000-8000 average( also here peak !  )Watt inrush power demand  !
ICL need: inrush current limiter
Working with transformer or motors : first calculate  !

C-value and DoD for the battery  as energy source  !

DC lamp starter circuit :
 60 Watt lamp : 130 Volt x 200 Ampere surge                     130x200 = 26000

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5264988A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19931123&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 03, 2019, 09:59:08 AM
Mr king many thanks for the info and clearing up a few old JB facts.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 03, 2019, 02:41:09 PM
Hi all, there is an other aspect to all this, the psychology aspect of asking validity questions, where the questioner has been accused out right of attacking him, and he will directly repeatedly ask me direct personal identity questions as if it is he who is on some sort of trial. The fact remains if I am interested in buying something I want to know what I am buying.
AG


Rick is not selling anything directly.  He does not give you a sales pitch. His information is free.  It is up to you to build or experiment.  Some people who do not have access to tooling equipment may decide to buy something from Rick or someone else.
So the best thing is to ask  sensible questions without being offensive or rude. You would not behave rudely in person, so why do it here?
Personally Rick has cleared up so many points for me  in the last 6 months that I now have a clear picture of how this technology works. He is the only person in the world who has come clean with this study.
The proof of what I am saying is that when I make some statements about this energy study, I get very few contradictions from Rick.
When I make a mistake he lets everyone know.
So sensible people will take note of that and verify information themselves.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 03, 2019, 03:02:26 PM

Hi Itsu,

Yes, the picture you mention in member Seaad's post (#890) shows many coils and they surely influence each other.   
But look what Rick wrote about his setup earlier, when he was commenting his own pictures showing about 75 coils
around the big red coil (Seaad's picture came from A.king who took it from Rick's video, shown with some more coils):

Quote
Ideally you would properly space all these coils so that they all become both transmitters and receivers in a
sympathetic relationship with each other in a way like the London bridge that was falling down (haha, no, the London
millennial bridge). Once this is locked into place then we do in fact have what Kron talks about in a different
context, and where you can remove the input as it is self-sustaining. And more than that, you can add loads to the
transmitter and even reverse the input. This usually requires several coils around the transmitter because the
output of the transmitter drops off at the square of the distance so enough has to come back into the transmitter to
accomplish that (considering that you have transmission radiating almost in all directions and usually we are only
placing coil just horizontally around it).
The loads off the 10 bigger coils (one not shown) were bright 3W LED bulbs, and another one was powered below off a
regular coil which isn't seen in the picture. So I had at least 11 of these big LEDs and almost 70 small LEDs
powered. I also added ferrite coils with these bigger bulbs that brought the input power down without lowering the
loads. So for 80ma at 12V that was an okay demonstration. It's the 1 watt challenge.
  from https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535253/#msg535253

And look what he wrote to me yesterday:
Quote

Again, there is nothing wrong with taking Itsu's claims in words and pictures as something to personally consider,
but to assume that you have some correct understand of what he was doing under the circumstances is mere assumption.


So Rick knows better what I understand from your video than I myself do. LOL The many years of our cooperation on this and other forums is enough for making only assumptions.  Go figure.  Now it is my turn:  hahaha

Just keep up your excellent work! 

Gyula

Gyula,

yes, i would agree that the goal would be to tune all coupled LC circuits to the same resonant frequency,
but looking at the picture in Seaad his post #890, many of those coils are so close they are bound to influence
each other and thus detune each other.

Anyway, the term avalanche is not quite what i mean, so probably wrong here.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 03, 2019, 03:14:10 PM
Hi Itsu,

Yes, the picture you mention in member Seaad's post (#890) shows many coils and they surely influence each other.   
But look what Rick wrote about his setup earlier, when he was commenting his own pictures showing about 75 coils
around the big red coil (Seaad's picture came from A.king who took it from Rick's video, shown with some more coils):
  from https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535253/#msg535253 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535253/#msg535253)

And look what he wrote to me yesterday:

So Rick knows better what I understand from your video than I myself do. LOL The many years of our cooperation on this and other forums is enough for making only assumptions.  Go figure.  Now it is my turn:  hahaha

Just keep up your excellent work! 

Gyula


I have two questions for you.


Does cold electricity exist?
Have you ever built a device which exhibits cold electricity?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 03, 2019, 03:37:07 PM
AG,
You have been playing a lot of games here. You needlessly insulted A.King when he recommended to Itsu to try grounding. Then you denied it. I quoted all the details and you just said "no comment." You are spending a lot time and wasting space here with such games. I appreciate many things you have said even with your attitude and ambiguous words at times. You have mocked me several times directly and indirectly in your questions so who are you trying to kid here? It doesn't bother me AG. You can see that I am always in good humor about it. It only serves to prove my points I have been making here. And all I am trying to do is help people here for free. This conflict ends up benefiting us all as people can now understand these games that are played on the forums while getting the important details on how to do free energy research.
I am not soliciting any sales here. I don't need you to buy anything from me but I will not refuse to sell you something if you want. Nor have I failed to answer anyone's questions. I only sell what people ask for, or rather demand. That started over 25 years ago as a special order ministry where people asked me to republish old classic books. So one thing lead to another and I became a small publisher. 15 years ago I extended that ministry to this research as well. I transcribe books for free, and patents, and make them available for print for those who would rather read them in that format. People demanded that parts be made available, so I did what I could to give them such. Same with the battery chargers. Same with the kits and books. I have not been able to keep up with the demand this year and am having to enlarge operations. I have spent a great deal of time helping you AG, and you are not a customer. I have said so many things to you that you could build such things yourself. It is evident that no matter what I do you seek to mock and pick at me in any way you want. That doesn't bother me and only serves to show everyone what is going on.
Hi all, there is an other aspect to all this, the psychology aspect of asking validity questions, where the questioner has been accused out right of attacking him, and he will directly repeatedly ask me direct personal identity questions as if it is he who is on some sort of trial. The fact remains if I am interested in buying something I want to know what I am buying.
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 03, 2019, 04:32:36 PM
G, you know nothing about how to do science obviously. As I said, you selectively assume what you want and reject assuming under the same conditions when you don't want to believe something. This is confirmation bias and everyone can see it. It is reckless and just circle reasoning. I did not say anything presented is useless, but merely that it cannot prove anything to anyone else because we do not know the full circumstance of the claims such as the environment and parts, etc. I am not denying that you guys have conversed over the years, but that still does not prevent mistakes from not being detected. You are just ignoring the conditions of evidence and the nature of real science and what it takes to come to rational conviction. You are just promoting rumors, speculation, confirmation bias and mocking while doing that. Not only are you doing that but you are demonstrating a double standard where you do not consistently accept claims that are given on the same level. So you are picking and choosing when a claim is to be believed with no justifiable reason. Knowing someone merely through a group, or even in person, doesn't mean anything when you are not there to see every detail of what is going on. You have already shown at least one mistake, how can you ever know if there are not more?

As for coils affecting each other. My point again is that they can and the don't effect each other depending on what you are doing. They are always effecting each other but my point is in the basic untuned video and picture there was no decrease in output, so in that way they were not affected. I wasn't being technical but merely talking about the lights not going dimmer when more coils were added. But I did say that they could get dimmer while doing some things that affected the primary. So yes that can happen as well. The point of the demo was to show my customers that you could have a situation where you added about 500 coils around the primary without dimming each load. It was not the ideal setup where each coil would be grounded and properly loaded after frequency reduced, etc.
So each coil is both a receiver and transmitter, and all the other coils will be affected by such transmission (in the lose sense of the term as I only look at is an influencer and not actually transmitting electrons). It is just that the phasing will determine how much the other coils are affected. These are the very sensitive relationships that you learn in the kit. But it is relatively easy to see all the coils not be a combined output of the input so that when you add coils each load on the existing coils does not go down, so that in my example I could have about 500 coils all around. And if properly spaced I could have no input, or negative.

Hi Itsu,
Yes, the picture you mention in member Seaad's post (#890) shows many coils and they surely influence each other.   
But look what Rick wrote about his setup earlier, when he was commenting his own pictures showing about 75 coils around the big red coil (Seaad's picture came from A.king who took it from Rick's video, shown with some more coils):
  from https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535253/#msg535253
"Ideally you would properly space all these coils so that they all become both transmitters and receivers in a sympathetic relationship with each other in a way like the London bridge that was falling down (haha, no, the London millennial bridge). Once this is locked into place then we do in fact have what Kron talks about in a different context, and where you can remove the input as it is self-sustaining. And more than that, you can add loads to the transmitter and even reverse the input. This usually requires several coils around the transmitter because the output of the transmitter drops off at the square of the distance so enough has to come back into the transmitter to accomplish that (considering that you have transmission radiating almost in all directions and usually we are only placing coil just horizontally around it).
The loads off the 10 bigger coils (one not shown) were bright 3W LED bulbs, and another one was powered below off a regular coil which isn't seen in the picture. So I had at least 11 of these big LEDs and almost 70 small LEDs powered. I also added ferrite coils with these bigger bulbs that brought the input power down without lowering the loads. So for 80ma at 12V that was an okay demonstration. It's the 1 watt challenge. "
And look what he wrote to me yesterday:
"Again, there is nothing wrong with taking Itsu's claims in words and pictures as something to personally consider, but to assume that you have some correct understand of what he was doing under the circumstances is mere assumption."

So Rick knows better what I understand from your video than I myself do. LOL The many years of our cooperation on this and other forums is enough for making only assumptions.  Go figure.  Now it is my turn:  hahaha
Just keep up your excellent work! 
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 03, 2019, 04:44:12 PM
AG,
You have been playing a lot of games here. You needlessly insulted A.King when he recommended to Itsu to try grounding. Then you denied it. I quoted all the details and you just said "no comment." You are spending a lot time and wasting space here with such games. I appreciate many things you have said even with your attitude and ambiguous words at times. You have mocked me several times directly and indirectly in your questions so who are you trying to kid here? It doesn't bother me AG. You can see that I am always in good humor about it. It only serves to prove my points I have been making here. And all I am trying to do is help people here for free. This conflict ends up benefiting us all as people can now understand these games that are played on the forums while getting the important details on how to do free energy research.
I am not soliciting any sales here. I don't need you to buy anything from me but I will not refuse to sell you something if you want. Nor have I failed to answer anyone's questions. I only sell what people ask for, or rather demand. That started over 25 years ago as a special order ministry where people asked me to republish old classic books. So one thing lead to another and I became a small publisher. 15 years ago I extended that ministry to this research as well. I transcribe books for free, and patents, and make them available for print for those who would rather read them in that format. People demanded that parts be made available, so I did what I could to give them such. Same with the battery chargers. Same with the kits and books. I have not been able to keep up with the demand this year and am having to enlarge operations. I have spent a great deal of time helping you AG, and you are not a customer. I have said so many things to you that you could build such things yourself. It is evident that no matter what I do you seek to mock and pick at me in any way you want. That doesn't bother me and only serves to show everyone what is going on.
With out prejudice

Rick, you can spin a yarn or two,  Perhaps I should cut you loose and leave you to your problems as this conjecture is doing my head in as they say and going nowhere.
Over and out.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 03, 2019, 04:55:07 PM
Deleted.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 03, 2019, 04:56:16 PM
I think you need to go back to that one line he said here:
Quote: Reply #568 on: June 16, 2019, 01:04:01 AM

"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."

If he has refused to explain WHY he "believes that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy compared to its input we feed in", then it is unlikely we will get anything similar out of him. Again, what basis does he have for this when he disbelieves the basis for such "extra energy" outputs? His power meter limitations forbid such.

I reverse argue his first point and say it is an extraordinary claim to state such a thing as the law of conservation of energy. How can that be proven? And how can one prove that such power meters are the final say in what can be done? I have shown that you can take billions of existing fans and make them produce almost double the output from what such power meters are telling you.

And as for my setup, he has a double standard for what he believes and disbelieves. It is foolish to propose that anyone is being urged to believe a claim over the internet, and I never proposed that. It is because of this subtle fallacy that I have been turning this over again and again. G refuses to answer these and related questions because they expose his bias, assumptions, and false theories and arbitrary conditions. He went away and then came back hoping people would forget these questions that expose all this. So it goes back to this question about what the highlighted sentence really means. Just why would he even say this when everything he writes is contrary to such sentence. Maybe if he would explain what grounds he has for saying that it would actually help us when that is what we are supposed to be focused on here, rather than him applying mainstream reasoning to everything and tearing down claims as impossible.

So again, what is the basis for that belief when everything he says is contrary. All his assumptions are for claims against OU and in support of mainstream theory that excludes the possibility. So the sentence has all appearance of being a hoax itself, and his refusal to answer this tends to confirm that.

I have two questions for you.
Does cold electricity exist?
Have you ever built a device which exhibits cold electricity?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 03, 2019, 05:05:27 PM

I have two questions for you.

Does cold electricity exist?
Have you ever built a device which exhibits cold electricity?
A.king,

I do not know what you mean on cold electricity here. Would you define it?

I read about Floyd Sweet's so called VTA device whose connecting wires were said to change suddenly from room temp to below freezing point temperature when Floyd shorted (accidentaly?) the output wires.  I have no reason to say Floyd lied, and on the other hand, to my knowledge nobody has managed to replicate the device. 

No I have not built a device which exhibits cold electricity if cold electricity means much lower than room temperature for you.
The problem is if you mean a component in a device has "stone cold" temperature, then I did build circuits where the components including transistors remained cool to the touch but not exceptionally, not unusually cold if you mean that. 

Notice: if I have a transistor type in metal casing, TO3 case for instance, like the good old 2N3055, then touching the metal body of such working (but not overpowered) transistor may give a cold to touch feeling just like any other metal surface in the room. This is because any ventilation in the room, or small air movement would cool metal surfaces quicker (metals good heat conductors). 

Itsu:  One further point.  When the phase conjugate mirror occured the coils went stone cold and the earth wire went stone cold. Also the big coil went stone cold.
...

I ask: did you use an infra thermometer or any thermometer to establish those wires actual temperatures? Can you repeat that test and check it if you did not check temperature back then?  How many degree Celsius (or F)  "stone cold" means?

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 03, 2019, 06:18:48 PM

G

Cold electricity:  Let us say you light up a 4 watt 12 volt led lightbulb.  Under normal conditions it would heat up.  Even if your voltage was low there should still be a slight heating effect.  That is ordinary or conventional electricity.
When you light up the same bulb using high frequency and/or an earth ground utilising Tesla single wire technology, the bulb lights up cold.
ie no heating effect which should be present.  Secondly it dips in temperature to varying degrees depending upon the circuit. This effect also happens on the RICK (Resonance induction coupler kit) under certain conditions.  It most certainly happens using a Slayer output to bulb and earth ground in a series configuration.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 03, 2019, 06:29:08 PM
A.king,
would you mind answering the rest of my questions?

G

Cold electricity:  Let us say you light up a 4 watt 12 volt led lightbulb.  Under normal conditions it would heat up.  Even if your voltage was low there should still be a slight heating effect.  That is ordinary or conventional electricity.
When you light up the same bulb using high frequency and/or an earth ground utilising Tesla single wire technology, the bulb lights up cold.
ie no heating effect which should be present.  Secondly it dips in temperature to varying degrees depending upon the circuit. This effect also happens on the RICK (Resonance induction coupler kit) under certain conditions.  It most certainly happens using a Slayer output to bulb and earth ground in a series configuration.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 03, 2019, 06:55:01 PM
I did not use any equipment to check the readings. I mention the effect because you cannot prove anything over the internet. It is for others to repeat the experiment and comment.  I am happy it went cold. So replicate it if you can.  That's my message.
I gave the information for free.  I did not have to. Simple as that.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 03, 2019, 06:55:14 PM
Rick,

What is wrong with my being optimistic in this sentence on extra energy:  "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."

On your reverse argument with mentioning the law of conversation of energy, I find this interesting you mention this law.

Was it not you who wrote this in your Reply #561:
"So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input." ? 
Is this not an over unity claim? Where is the law of conversation of energy in your case? 


Some technical things for a change if you do not mind:

You mention in some of your posts that the input DC current to the gate driver IC decreases as you place more and more RX coils around the TX coil. Would you tell why exactly the input current goes lower? 

A.king wrote this in Reply #334 on the role of the gate driver, I quote it here:
"The innovation by Rick is in the gate driver, because it causes a more disruptive discharge.  The disruptive discharge is  something which Tesla championed.  In this case it produces a larger magnetic field.
The difference is without the gate driver and  with the  frequency generator that has 20V PP you only get 250V PP on the transmitter coil, but 1300V with the gate driver @ 9V. So the gate driver dramatically increases the gains because of the fast rate of change.
This happens at  resonance of course, and you can see the increase on the scope shots.
The purpose of the disruptive discharge is to increase the rate of change.


My question to you would be: what exactly insures a larger EM field coming out from the TX coil when a gate driver is used? Do you agree with A.king's explanations?  Anything else to add?

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 03, 2019, 07:00:49 PM
Thanks for the answers.  Rick blames me not being scientific and whenever I ask for scientific results I am refused.
Why is that ?

By the way, this is an open forum.  I did not know about giving information for money is the habit for you.

Gyula

I did not use any equipment to check the readings. I mention the effect because you cannot prove anything over the internet. It is for others to repeat the experiment and comment.  I am happy it went cold. So replicate it if you can.  That's my message.
I gave the information for free.  I did not have to. Simple as that.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 03, 2019, 07:09:51 PM
Thanks for the answers.  Rick blames me not being scientific and whenever I ask for scientific results I am refused.
Why is that ?

By the way, this is an open forum.  I did not know about giving information for money is the habit for you.

Gyula
There you go twisting my words. I do not charge for information. I think you have some issues, or you are being paid to impune free energy research.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 03, 2019, 07:15:01 PM
Hi Itsu,

Yes, the picture you mention in member Seaad's post (#890) shows many coils and they surely influence each other.   
But look what Rick wrote about his setup earlier, when he was commenting his own pictures showing about 75 coils
around the big red coil (Seaad's picture came from A.king who took it from Rick's video, shown with some more coils):
  from https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535253/#msg535253 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535253/#msg535253)

And look what he wrote to me yesterday:

So Rick knows better what I understand from your video than I myself do. LOL The many years of our cooperation on this and other forums is enough for making only assumptions.  Go figure.  Now it is my turn:  hahaha

Just keep up your excellent work! 

Gyula

Gyula,

i do not read Rick's long posts, nor see his long video's, i just don't have the stomach for it.
I bravely start reading or looking, but after a few sentences or minutes i am lost and have to give up.

Its probable me as i have the same with most of AG his posts.


Most if not all i know from my present setup came from Benfr and A.king21 as they were feeding me snippets from posts and video's.
Not ideal, i know.


Anyway, i am glad we are on the same wavelength and have been for years.

I will try to do some sympathetic resonance frequency tests with more then 2 overcoupled coils and involve
temperature tests to see if anything gets cold.


Thanks,   itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 03, 2019, 07:41:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMQqnaWUA98


I assume this is related to Rick's energizer technology  -for those who have never seen the video.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 03, 2019, 07:46:37 PM
Hi, Itsu
Interesting reading Itsu, but I don't lie i might get Waylaid by other's who BS  ;D
However one lithuanian guy the ''master'' explains a lot and unless ''''''it's''''''' done
in the front end 'katcher' your wasting your time same in this thread as the truth
exploits a Tesla fact he noticed from over head trams!

When you have 'that' then you do what your doing with the 'coils' katcher to grenate
not the other way round.

AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 03, 2019, 07:49:26 PM
There you go twisting my words. I do not charge for information. I think you have some issues, or you are being paid to impune free energy research.
Well, I misunderstood you then, sorry.  Why did you write you had given information for free? 

Yes, I have issues with any unfounded claims, that is all.  I have no problem with free energy research.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 03, 2019, 08:02:38 PM
...
Anyway, i am glad we are on the same wavelength and have been for years.

I will try to do some sympathetic resonance frequency tests with more then 2 overcoupled coils and involve
temperature tests to see if anything gets cold.

Thanks,   itsu
Hi Itsu, 

You are welcome. 

Small comment: maybe for achieving the sympathetic resonance you would need quite a few RX coils, perhaps you receive information on the approximate number of coils  for the phenomena to manifest. 
If you do not have enough ferrite rods (or loopsticks from old AM pocket radios) for tuning the RX coils you could use toroidal cores just a single one (or stacked ones if their permeability is low) scavenged from discarded PC power supplies or any other 'gadget'.   Also, simple cylinder shaped ferrite tuning 'slugs' would also serve for fine tuning the coils.  You can wrap such cores up in foam or airbag material and put inside the bobbins for fixing them temporarily while tuning. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on July 03, 2019, 08:09:15 PM
Coils at all angles.  ha ha lol

So you have been able to light all the coils even at right angles (for instance 2 paralel tanks), well well done ! This is to me like the "environment conditioning and bringing overunities" that Rick talked about many times...noticeably in the kit...congrats, and thanks !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on July 03, 2019, 08:18:08 PM
Hi all
I'd like to ask Rick about the series inductor impedances which serve as a stand alone reaction loops. Each connecting point between those inductances...Is that a point that we have to pay more attention like building for example reactive loops with specific lengths of wire harmonically related?

Thanks
Jeg


Interesting Jeg. I believe yes. The tesla impedance circuit/ said hairpin does it exactly if I'm correctly understanding it. Also mentionned by Rick.
Specific lengths shall create the harmonics, I believe too. Hence the concept of 1/4 wave length...which I'm working on also.


Is that an effect that relates to the amounts of the extracted free energy?
Thanks
Jeg

I would say yes. That's exactly how to extract the resonance amplified voltage / amperage to use it. The kit shows how to do that. For instance, the kit shows you how to extract the free energy to light a 95 V neon bulb from a mere 9 V input. (as the amperage stays the same; which the kit shows how to measure, too).
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 03, 2019, 08:38:10 PM
Hi Itsu, 

You are welcome. 

Small comment: maybe for achieving the sympathetic resonance you would need quite a few RX coils, perhaps you receive information on the approximate number of coils  for the phenomena to manifest. 
If you do not have enough ferrite rods (or loopsticks from old AM pocket radios) for tuning the RX coils you could use toroidal cores just a single one (or stacked ones if their permeability is low) scavenged from discarded PC power supplies or any other 'gadget'.   Also, simple cylinder shaped ferrite tuning 'slugs' would also serve for fine tuning the coils.  You can wrap such cores up in foam or airbag material and put inside the bobbins for fixing them temporarily while tuning.


   Guys:
   Perhaps, it would help to space the coils evenly all the way around the main coil. As in winding turns on a torroid coil, which helps to fill the whole circumference. On small coils in the MHz range I've used pencils to help help tune the coils with. But, itsu's coil are much wider, so pencils may not work as well.
   Gyula:  If you don't watch out, you'll be in the ranks of a troll, like AG, and me.
   Itsu:     I think that I get the same stomach problems...                                                                                    NickZ
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 03, 2019, 08:48:02 PM
Hi Itsu, 

You are welcome. 

Small comment: maybe for achieving the sympathetic resonance you would need quite a few RX coils, perhaps you receive information on the approximate number of coils  for the phenomena to manifest. 
If you do not have enough ferrite rods (or loopsticks from old AM pocket radios) for tuning the RX coils you could use toroidal cores just a single one (or stacked ones if their permeability is low) scavenged from discarded PC power supplies or any other 'gadget'.   Also, simple cylinder shaped ferrite tuning 'slugs' would also serve for fine tuning the coils.  You can wrap such cores up in foam or airbag material and put inside the bobbins for fixing them temporarily while tuning. 

Gyula

Gyula,

i have now 8 new coils, and will build another 2 to come to 10, which according to A.king21 is the minimum needed
amount of coils for the effect to manifest.

The ferrite won't be the problem,  i have enough like you mentioned, my problem is that they only tune 1 way, down,
so i don't see how they can be very usefull, but i will try to find out.

Together with an ifrared thermometer, gauss/emf meter and a ground wire at some specific points (??!!) we should
see some magic soon.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 03, 2019, 08:56:33 PM


 Guys:
   Perhaps, it would help to space the coils evenly all the way around the main coil. As in winding turns on a torroid coil, which helps to fill the whole circumference. On small coils in the MHz range I've used pencils to help help tune the coils with. But, itsu's coil are much wider, so pencils may not work as well.
   Gyula:  If you don't watch out, you'll be in the ranks of a troll, like AG, and me.
   Itsu:     I think that I get the same stomach problems...                                                                                    NickZ

Hi Nick,

good idea,   like in this post (see video there)?
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535768/#msg535768


Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 03, 2019, 09:25:09 PM
Coils at all angles.

==> ITSU, (all)
Some thoughts on a small test regarding coils in all directions:
I assume that Rick said.
A coil can be a receiver and a transmitter at the same time.
In my simple ugly picture below, I give an example of this.
Normally, coil A can't transmit energy to coils C, D with these mutual coil directions.
First test that with coils A + C + D so that the LEDs on C, D do not lit.

The ellipses roughly show the energy propagation.
But coil A can transmit energy to coil B. (red ellipse)
Thereafter, coil B repeats energy (blue ellipse) to coil C which transmits energy to coil D (purple ellipse).
This can of course be completely up in the "blue"  ::) ::) 8)

- Maybe the test has to be redone with other angles between the coils to work?
- Maybe a re-transmitting of the energy from coil B may only occur with a certain kind of load? (LED resistor, ETC)

Regards Arne

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 03, 2019, 09:58:32 PM
Hi Itsu,

I agree with Nick's advice on spacing the RX coils all the way around the TX coil.

You mention overcoupled coils for sympathetic resonance: well maybe it would be better to find a radius around the TX coil which already insures a distance to have critical coupling or only very little overcoupling.
 
This could bring a benefit: you would need to fine tune less frequency difference with ferrite cores (split frequencies could get closer to each other hence also closer to a single resonant frequency) versus the case with overcoupling.
Ideally, very likely critical coupling would be the best between the TX and any RX coil and also  between any adjacent RX coil, I think.

It is possible the 10 coils will not fit into a single circle around the TX coil, you could place one RX coil under and one coil above the TX coil, this may solve or eases that problem.

With the quasi equal spacing around and say with trying to observe critical coupling,  the detuning effect for the RX coils may come about also more uniformly i.e. the mutual pulling may go towards a single direction, expectedly downwards. Then this can be compensated by retuning the TX oscillator and TX capacitor to a slightly lower frequency, to look for higher and higher brightness for more and more LED lamps.  For this though, you would need at least 10 identical LED bulbs but anyway frequent tuning the TX frequency little by little in downward direction can ease tuning process.

Just noticed Seaad's post above: yes it makes sense but an ardous task for sure. But Rick wrote it would have needed several hours at a meeting to achieve sympathetic resonance, and there was no time for it.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 03, 2019, 10:06:43 PM
Hi Nick,
The die is (or may be) cast...   :D

Gyula

Guys:
   Perhaps, it would help to space the coils evenly all the way around the main coil. As in winding turns on a torroid coil, which helps to fill the whole circumference. On small coils in the MHz range I've used pencils to help help tune the coils with. But, itsu's coil are much wider, so pencils may not work as well.
   Gyula:  If you don't watch out, you'll be in the ranks of a troll, like AG, and me.
   Itsu:     I think that I get the same stomach problems...                                                                                   
 NickZ
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 04, 2019, 12:07:17 AM
Seaad,   Gyula,


Thanks for the info,   lots to think about and harder to do :-)


I just wanted to show where the max. RF is on the big coil by using a little RF probe, see video and diagram.
Its on top of the coil inbetween the coil and the var. cap (unless i turn around the coil).


The magnetic field though is somewhat harder to pinpoint, as a satellite coil will show different values
depending how its positioned to the big coil, see video, so the drawing of Seaad above might not be thru.

Anyway, i tried that proposed setup and got some result, but not where Seaad drew it, see video.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjiNoeyBLd0


More in the next days......


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 04, 2019, 05:18:56 AM
Seaad,   Gyula,


Thanks for the info,   lots to think about and harder to do :-)


I just wanted to show where the max. RF is on the big coil by using a little RF probe, see video and diagram.
Its on top of the coil inbetween the coil and the var. cap (unless i turn around the coil).


The magnetic field though is somewhat harder to pinpoint, as a satellite coil will show different values
depending how its positioned to the big coil, see video, so the drawing of Seaad above might not be thru.

Anyway, i tried that proposed setup and got some result, but not where Seaad drew it, see video.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjiNoeyBLd0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjiNoeyBLd0)


More in the next days......


Itsu
Nice vid.  You have just rediscovered the relay resonator......https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/1963 (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/1963)
(It was invented by one of Rick's students. I believe (Almost sure - but not 100%))
Anyhow as you and G love equations - it may enhance your understanding..


And it's starting to look more and more like a  Gabriel  Kron network system.


A quotation from the paper,"The relay resonator restricts the dissipation of the magnetic flux and generates an enhanced amount of magnetic flux from the Tx to the Rx. It consists of a rectangular loop antenna connected to a capacitor that allows the relay resonator to resonate at a fixed resonating frequency"


Quote,"Generates an enhanced amount of magnetic flux" -  Now where have we heard that before......... I wonder......
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 04, 2019, 07:08:41 AM
What are you talking about? Playing more games here I see. I answered all your questions and you never answered any questions. Now you divert with more questions. Why not answer the simple questions G?
What scientific results? I already told you. Anyone is welcome to do real science in the real world with themselves or together. That is what I do all day long G. Maybe you just play with people online in fantasy land. I don't know. You are not willing to commit to what real science is. So far you have not even explained what you mean by science. You are using a word that means something is verifiable. But somehow you assume that can be done online. The forums are only for information sharing.
Anyway, why not answer the question G? Everyone know why G.

Thanks for the answers.  Rick blames me not being scientific and whenever I ask for scientific results I am refused.
Why is that ?

By the way, this is an open forum.  I did not know about giving information for money is the habit for you.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 04, 2019, 07:15:41 AM
Everyone can see the few guys here that are playing on words in the hopes that future readers will just superficially read over the words and think such a thing was said. They know if they just do this day and night for years that they will drown out people and then superficial people will read it and conclude it must be true. I mean really, that was an obvious deliberate twisting. This is really dirty. This is really desperate measures. Interesting to see what is next. It is suppression overtime now people. The lies have been exposed and much truth has been shared. Hurry, get all the disinfo people on here and drown out the truth, because we don't want people reading those things. Well, I have collected and organized everything so it will not be lost, and it will not distract anyone as these people have tried to do.

There you go twisting my words. I do not charge for information. I think you have some issues, or you are being paid to impune free energy research.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 04, 2019, 07:19:33 AM
That's fine Itsu, I could see this. I haven't really read much of your posts since I read them near the beginning. There are plenty of things you can do. There is no reason you have do anything I have shared. But I suppose that if you don't do anything significant then G will claim something is proven by it.  ::)

Gyula,

i do not read Rick's long posts, nor see his long video's, i just don't have the stomach for it.
I bravely start reading or looking, but after a few sentences or minutes i am lost and have to give up.

Its probable me as i have the same with most of AG his posts.


Most if not all i know from my present setup came from Benfr and A.king21 as they were feeding me snippets from posts and video's.
Not ideal, i know.


Anyway, i am glad we are on the same wavelength and have been for years.

I will try to do some sympathetic resonance frequency tests with more then 2 overcoupled coils and involve
temperature tests to see if anything gets cold.


Thanks,   itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 04, 2019, 07:27:33 AM
Yes,
I showed the fan and guys like this took the credit. Whatever, so long as people can see the gains. Well, I guess since you posted a video link here and it gives confirmation of OU, then G has his conditions for a claim fulfilled. The truth is that thousands of people all around the world are using these fans. People have run with this. So I am very happy. One guy makes his entire living in Europe selling these. That's truly amazing considering that the power meter proves that you can't charge a battery with it, or that a cap takes 15 minutes and hardly gets up to 1V  ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMQqnaWUA98


I assume this is related to Rick's energizer technology  -for those who have never seen the video.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 04, 2019, 07:42:13 AM
Yeah it is actually all very involved in what I call the near near field. You are dealing with a bunch of factors that are not just waves but capacitance relationships. If you consider Tesla's perspective, then the two inductors are really two plates of a capacitor. Don Smith's L1 and L2 also can be looked at that way to. But here we can almost place the secondary coils in any position (if you move it in and out that can change). I say there is about 70% of the area around the transmitter but if you turn it in that void area it can also find an angle that powers it. The diagram you have is just a simplified view. Added to that are environmental influences and reflections and capacitance relationships. This is what I bring up in the book, and why I use the one LED as it is easy to make very small changes and see the differences. It's fun to learn this. And it is good to learn it without high power so you are not radiated.  :P

Coils at all angles.

==> ITSU, (all)
Some thoughts on a small test regarding coils in all directions:
I assume that Rick said.
A coil can be a receiver and a transmitter at the same time.
In my simple ugly picture below, I give an example of this.
Normally, coil A can't transmit energy to coils C, D with these mutual coil directions.
First test that with coils A + C + D so that the LEDs on C, D do not lit.

The ellipses roughly show the energy propagation.
But coil A can transmit energy to coil B. (red ellipse)
Thereafter, coil B repeats energy (blue ellipse) to coil C which transmits energy to coil D (purple ellipse).
This can of course be completely up in the "blue"  ::) ::) 8)

- Maybe the test has to be redone with other angles between the coils to work?
- Maybe a re-transmitting of the energy from coil B may only occur with a certain kind of load? (LED resistor, ETC)

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 04, 2019, 07:51:17 AM
No,
But you can learn about rectennas from this as I said before.
This is all going to be very big in the next few years. Just take a look and Energous and their recent activity with 200 fresh patents. This is huge and the new future. So what you boys are doing here is not unimportant. Obviously as you wouldn't bother if you thought it was a hoax.

Nice vid.  You have just rediscovered the relay resonator......https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/1963 (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/9/1963)
(It was invented by one of Rick's students. I believe (Almost sure - but not 100%))
Anyhow as you and G love equations - it may enhance your understanding..


And it's starting to look more and more like a  Gabriel  Kron network system.


A quotation from the paper,"The relay resonator restricts the dissipation of the magnetic flux and generates an enhanced amount of magnetic flux from the Tx to the Rx. It consists of a rectangular loop antenna connected to a capacitor that allows the relay resonator to resonate at a fixed resonating frequency"


Quote,"Generates an enhanced amount of magnetic flux" -  Now where have we heard that before......... I wonder......
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 04, 2019, 08:47:11 AM
Hoppy, were you on vacation or something??? I am not aware of anyone who has given more OU demonstrations publicly.

Yes, that's right and I now wish that I had stayed out.  ;D ::)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 04, 2019, 09:47:41 AM
Hi ITSU thank you for the very interesting video.

About stomach. It's interesting that a man can can talk so much and only reveal tiny fractions. A bit like Don. But we are all different I suppose.

Now I I hope that you can make a test with my second question to see how/ if a load connected to the relay coil effects the transfer and at the same time pic up an deliver power to it's own load.

" - Maybe a re-transmitting of the energy from coil B may only occur with a certain kind of load? (LED resistor, ETC)"

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 04, 2019, 10:13:22 AM

Seaad,

sorry to not mention it, but i tried with my red led satellite coil for coil B, but then this red led is on mostly
all the time, but does not cause the other satellite coils leds to turn on, not even when in the vertical position
just in front of them.

I can try to use another load (resistor, etc.).


Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 04, 2019, 01:28:42 PM
A. King, Gyula, Itsu, and all!
In inductive or capacitive circuits current leads or lags voltage, and current produces magnetism in the wire and magnetism
is strongly related to gravity. So how fast can I grab the energy before the magnetic field rises and charge a capacitor with it ?
Now that is the real trick what John Bedini was on about.

AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 04, 2019, 03:29:17 PM
Seaad,   Gyula,


Thanks for the info,   lots to think about and harder to do :-)


I just wanted to show where the max. RF is on the big coil by using a little RF probe, see video and diagram.
Its on top of the coil inbetween the coil and the var. cap (unless i turn around the coil).


The magnetic field though is somewhat harder to pinpoint, as a satellite coil will show different values
depending how its positioned to the big coil, see video, so the drawing of Seaad above might not be thru.

Anyway, i tried that proposed setup and got some result, but not where Seaad drew it, see video.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjiNoeyBLd0


More in the next days......


Itsu

Hi Itsu,

Nice video demo that creates curious info in a brief period. Congrats! 

I am curious if you have taken or see any input measurement change to the transmitting coil when the vertical satellite coil is positioned to enhance the output power in the two receivers?  If so, what are the results?

Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on July 04, 2019, 04:32:37 PM
Rick
 
 I'd like to ask about a bank of capacitors that I have, charging them through ''negative'' energy. The bank itself is of 20 milliFarads at 63Volts. The spikes across them are in the order of few KV. I see that it charges while dumping the input KV peaks down to safe levels for the dielectric. At least this is how it looks like. But is it true? I mean doesn't dielectric suffer due to all this sudden stress across the plates? Even if it looks that it charges smooth from zero to 50 volts, is it susceptible to inter-arcing between the plates? We know that this kind of waveshape sees differences in impedance even in distances of few cm away. What about a plate of an electrolytic cap of many meters long which in addition has also an inductance?? And finally what about charging 12V supercapacitors? Are they in danger for the same reason?

Thanks
Jeg
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 04, 2019, 05:10:21 PM
Haha, there are so many things you bring up here. I'll have to think about what is most important to address in this. What I have seen is people oversimplify capacitors and how to use them properly (and even neglect to condition them as I shared in the one video), and how to use them efficiently. I am finishing up a Benitez capacitor kit system which will probably end up addressing these things. There are misconceptions about capacitors, and there is also the same differences we find with mainstream theory and free energy research. Obviously mainstream would make Benitez first patent impossible, but it is not. Oh, another claim here.
Anyway, I'll think about responding specifically today.

Rick
 I'd like to ask about a bank of capacitors that I have, charging them through ''negative'' energy. The bank itself is of 20 milliFarads at 63Volts. The spikes across them are in the order of few KV. I see that it charges while dumping the input KV peaks down to safe levels for the dielectric. At least this is how it looks like. But is it true? I mean doesn't dielectric suffer due to all this sudden stress across the plates? Even if it looks that it charges smooth from zero to 50 volts, is it susceptible to inter-arcing between the plates? We know that this kind of waveshape sees differences in impedance even in distances of few cm away. What about a plate of an electrolytic cap of many meters long which in addition has also an inductance?? And finally what about charging 12V supercapacitors? Are they in danger for the same reason?

Thanks
Jeg
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 04, 2019, 05:52:56 PM

I was wondering why the magnetic coupling between the big coil and a small coil is how it is, meaning why
is there a maximum in the middle when both coils are vertical and why is there a minimum in that same middle
when the small coil is horzontal?

I have drawn 3 coils, one big coil in the middle, and 2 small coils next to the big one, one vertical, one horizontal.

The big red letters represent strong fields, small letters less strong fields.


Could this be the reason?

Coils taken from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/solenoid.html

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on July 04, 2019, 06:38:17 PM
Itsu
Looks like one position traces voltage nodes/antinodes and the other position current. Nice tool!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 04, 2019, 07:00:20 PM
I was wondering why the magnetic coupling between the big coil and a small coil is how it is, meaning why
is there a maximum in the middle when both coils are vertical and why is there a minimum in that same middle
when the small coil is horizontal?

Maybe if you combine two, vertical and horizontal, position will not be important, and it will react the same in any position?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 04, 2019, 07:00:46 PM
   itsu:   What happens if you place the small coils inside the big coil? As there are more losses outside the big coil, in field strengh.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 04, 2019, 07:19:33 PM
So the questions are, are those drawings representing what is happening, are if yes, are they the totality, and does all the energy transfer from primary to secondaries in a way that no gains are possible? Is there any point in asking these questions?

Itsu
Looks like one position traces voltage nodes/antinodes and the other position current. Nice tool!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 04, 2019, 07:22:49 PM
That is the most important consideration Nick. But that is the advanced process. As I said, you can do the Don Smith L2 arrangement that way, which receives all the flux through it, while still doing the same things we are doing here. But there are a lot of relationships to consider as you can see in the Resonance transformers book and elsewhere...

   itsu:   What happens if you place the small coils inside the big coil? As there are more losses outside the big coil, in field strengh.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 04, 2019, 07:25:31 PM

Hi Jeg,

i think you are talking RF not magnetic field.
The RF field is strongest at the top of the big coil, see my latest video above.

The magnetic field however is like shown in the drawings.



WhatIsIt,

thats a different animal alltogether, but could be fun to try it out.



NickZ,

i tried to put the smaller coils inside the big coil (does not fit completly with the pcb and led attached),
and as expected, the fields there are the strongest.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on July 04, 2019, 07:52:58 PM
I thought it meant laugh out loud.  Ah well you live and learn.
Anyhow I did not use capitals.. I was trying to introduce some lightness into the study.
So maybe use ha ha ha instead  (ha ha). :D

Sir, I disagree...you do not need to save from using words. Words do not circulate else than by the intent. Your intent was nice, so the energy which circulated. Buddha has stated about such things ; Masaru Emoto has even proven such manifestations. Be confident that laugh belongs to light ...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 04, 2019, 08:04:58 PM
Hi Itsu,
Would you mind making a coil on a ferrite rod and use it at also to probe around the big coil? (like you showed it 
with the small coil and single white LED in the video, after the VU meter tests). 
 Ferrite antennas mainly receive (and sensitive to) the magnetic components of EM fields.   
This would verify the behaviour found by the small coil test (I do not know if it has a ferromagnetic core?)

Thanks, 
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on July 04, 2019, 08:11:54 PM
So the questions are, are those drawings representing what is happening, are if yes, are they the totality, and does all the energy transfer from primary to secondaries in a way that no gains are possible? Is there any point in asking these questions?

I think I understand your point. You are talking about the two energy storage mechanisms that exist and our bad habit to tap in just one of the two. Namely electric and magnetic field. Energy goes back and forth transforming itself in the two different qualities. The electric part is forgotten.       
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 04, 2019, 08:47:14 PM
I think I understand your point. You are talking about the two energy storage mechanisms that exist and our bad habit to tap in just one of the two. Namely electric and magnetic field. Energy goes back and forth transforming itself in the two different qualities. The electric part is forgotten.       
Jeg do you mean dielectric? on a real device you need both and mix them for real power. ;D then transmit it !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 04, 2019, 10:31:58 PM

Partzman,   Gyula,


I redid the test where the vertical satellite coil in front of the 2 horizontal satellite coils increased
their leds output while monitoring the input voltage / current into the gate driver.

It shows that the input current decreases (199.4 -> 195.1mA) when the vertical coil gets in front of both.

I also tested with the 2 horizontal coils next to each other, so in a horizontal plane instead of above each other
(vertical plane) and the results are similar with the difference that the vertical coil in front only reacts with the
horizontal coil directly in front of it (same input differences (199 -> 194mA).
Video available if wanted.



I also used a ferrite rod cored coil to do the magnetic field outline test which i did yesterday using a small
air coil in resonance and a blue led.

Also the ferrite rod cored coil (560uH) somewhat in resonance with a 1nF cap parallel with a blue led showed
similar behaviour, meaning when horizontal, a dip in the middle, and a peak in the middle when vertically.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY


Itsu   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 05, 2019, 12:58:14 AM
Hi Itsu,

Thanks for the tests. 
I think your TX coil behaves like a vertical antenna with a size little longer in length than a quarter wave antenna but
much less in length than a half wave antenna. It has a voltage maximum at its top side (and minimum at its bottom)
and it has a current maximum in its middle part (and minimum current at its top and bottom). 

For your TX coil, we need to consider that a generator (gate driver IC or function generator) drives the series LC circuit
with a low AC and DC internal impedance and the series LC circuit is closed via this low impedance. And across this low
impedance there is the 10-12 V or so square wave signal, this is also a relatively low level with respect to common
connection point of the capacitor and the coil where the several hundred volt or even kV high voltage levels develop.
This is why the voltage i.e. E field is low at the bottom of your coil and it has a maximum at the other end.
 
When you hold the small coil or ferrite coil horizontally, we need to consider it has its own magnetic field reception
characteristics,  from its end direction it has a zero response, this is why it shows quasi zero magnetic field in the middle.
But the current in the TX coil creates maximum magnetic field just in the middle part your black tape is.   

Here is a good explanation for the operation of a half wave dipole. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bDyA5t1ldU
Notice it has open ends and this explains voltage maximums at its two ends and it has a current maximum at its center
part where it is usually driven and the current is zero at its ends. (Electrons have to stop at the conductor open ends.) 
The animation nicely shows the 90 degree phase relation between the current and voltage, a resonant antenna is also
an LC circuit of course.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 05, 2019, 06:33:38 AM
SO ITSU PLEASE USE THREE COILS PUT TWO HORIZONTALS TOP AND BOTTOM AND A VERTICAL COIL ALL IN THE MIDDLE ALL IN SERIES RESONANCE AND SEE WHAT HAPPEN.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 05, 2019, 10:37:48 PM
Hi Itsu,

Thanks for the tests. 
I think your TX coil behaves like a vertical antenna with a size little longer in length than a quarter wave antenna but
much less in length than a half wave antenna. It has a voltage maximum at its top side (and minimum at its bottom)
and it has a current maximum in its middle part (and minimum current at its top and bottom). 

For your TX coil, we need to consider that a generator (gate driver IC or function generator) drives the series LC circuit
with a low AC and DC internal impedance and the series LC circuit is closed via this low impedance. And across this low
impedance there is the 10-12 V or so square wave signal, this is also a relatively low level with respect to common
connection point of the capacitor and the coil where the several hundred volt or even kV high voltage levels develop.
This is why the voltage i.e. E field is low at the bottom of your coil and it has a maximum at the other end.
 
When you hold the small coil or ferrite coil horizontally, we need to consider it has its own magnetic field reception
characteristics,  from its end direction it has a zero response, this is why it shows quasi zero magnetic field in the middle.
But the current in the TX coil creates maximum magnetic field just in the middle part your black tape is.   

Here is a good explanation for the operation of a half wave dipole. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bDyA5t1ldU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bDyA5t1ldU)
Notice it has open ends and this explains voltage maximums at its two ends and it has a current maximum at its center
part where it is usually driven and the current is zero at its ends. (Electrons have to stop at the conductor open ends.) 
The animation nicely shows the 90 degree phase relation between the current and voltage, a resonant antenna is also
an LC circuit of course.
Gyula
Gyula,

thanks for the comments and the link, nice tutorial on antenna's.

But i am not sure if it fits the big coil setup i have here, at least some things measured do not add up.
 
I know the voltage across the LC is at maximum inbetween the L and C, as that i can measure with the VU meter,
but if there is a maximum current i do not see it.
Measuring with the current probe shows the same signals above the coil, inbetween the coil and cap and below
the Cap, see screenshot.

I cannot measure inside the coil or cap, so i still need some gauss meter capable for 193Kz i guess to check on that.

Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 05, 2019, 10:41:44 PM
SO ITSU PLEASE USE THREE COILS PUT TWO HORIZONTALS TOP AND BOTTOM AND A VERTICAL COIL ALL IN THE MIDDLE ALL IN SERIES RESONANCE AND SEE WHAT HAPPEN.

Seychelles,

please don't shout,  the caps lock key is on the left of your keyboard.

Could you please clarify what you mean, (TWO HORIZONTALS TOP AND BOTTOM?).
I use parallel resonance only, is that OK,  or must it be series resonance?

thnaks,   itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 06, 2019, 12:11:19 AM
Hi Itsu,

Yes, the voltage is at maximum inbetween the L and C, on their connection point and let's clarify further that this voltage
maximum is referenced to the common negative of the driver IC, the negative supply rail is at zero voltage. 
In case a grounding wire is connected to this common negative rail, then the zero voltage may change to a certain potential
RF wise, depends also on frequency.  The C capacitor is directly connected to the common negative while the L coil is
connected via the low output impedance of the driver IC or the function generator. 
All I mean here is to clarify between which two points is the L and C voltage maximum in the circuit, ok? With the VU meter probe 
you checked this by starting from the bottom of the TX coil which is connected to the common negative via the output pin of the IC
(or via the output of a function gen) so the bottom coil wire is maximum at 12Vp level above the common negative whenever
the positive half waves of the square wave appears. 

Now about the current: yes, you cannot see the maximum current but I mean current maximum developing in the middle part of the TX coil, 
this was indicated by  the small coil or ferrite rod coil tests. They showed maximum magnetic field strength in the middle part (black tape) of the coil. 
I say from antenna theory:  maximum magnetic field can develop only where there is current maximum developing.

I think you could influence the place for the maximum current by changing the input frequency to the gate driver and retuning
the TX circuit to that new frequency and use again the ferrite coil horizontally whether it will indicate zero in the middle part of
the TX coil, ok? If this zero place shifts below or above the black tape, then it should mean the current maximum developed at another part of the coil. 
If the zero place (as indicated by the ferrite probe coil) stays in the middle, then I am simply wrong
with this current maximum explanation in the coil and in this case it may not work similarly to a quarter wave antenna.
With the change of the frequency (say by 50-80 kHz) the voltage maximum should stay inbetween the L and C I think.
Thanks
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 06, 2019, 05:07:48 AM
sorry about the cap addict that i am..
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 06, 2019, 10:39:20 AM
Rick, AKing,

What is the difference between your setups and Itsu setup?


Thanks!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 06, 2019, 11:04:12 AM
Rick, AKing,

What is the difference between your setups and Itsu setup?


Thanks!
Good question!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 06, 2019, 12:30:09 PM
Hi
Have performed this test in the simulator LTspice XVII
I used the same coils as ITSU's but made the test at 200 kHz
with some minor adjustments of the capacitors values to maximise the output voltage.
A load resistor of 10 k-Ohm was chosen.
A resistor is inserted after the ideal square wave generator to simulate ITSU's gate driver impedanse somewhat. The switch SW can be closed
to use the ideal  gate driver (with exteme low impedanse).

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 06, 2019, 01:19:54 PM

Gyula,

thanks,   i will try to vary the frequency ± 50-80KHz while monitoring the middle dip and max voltage.



seychelles,

thanks, i see what you mean, and will try that.


seaad,

thanks for doing that, very nice.

The figures not quite resemble what i measure (12V square 50% duty cycle @ 200mA input and
3.7KV Volt1 voltage), but that probably is due to the 30 Ohm gate driver impedance resistor.
Could be my gate driver (IXDD614) has a much lower impedance.

But it nicely simulates the behaviour what i see when adding more and more coils.

1 coil  @ 0.025 CF results in 500V @ 165mA input and induces 37V.
8 coils @ 0.025 CF results in 107V @ 35mA input and induces 7.5V.

So the generated RF / magnetic power (if you call and calculate that this way) drops from 82.5W (500 x 0.165)
to 3.7W (107 x 0.035) which is by 95.5%.

The induce voltage in the satellite coils drops from 37V to 7.5V  which across a 10K resistor means (p=u²/r)
from 140mW to 6mW which is by 95.8%.

Please correct me if i am wrong.

Itsu





Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 06, 2019, 03:49:26 PM
Input Watt

Peak! mA NB.  mA x 0.7  x  10 x 0.5 (50%)        10 Volt input in my case
                      in     RMS      V     duty c.

Output Watt

Peak! V NB.   V x 0.7 ^2 / 10 000     and times 1 output unit, or 8 output units
                  out  RMS sqr    Ohm

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 06, 2019, 04:27:17 PM
Rick, AKing,

What is the difference between your setups and Itsu setup?


Thanks!
I have a tap on my coil at 180khz going down to 137 khz, so I run my set up at 137 khz so that the cheap Chinese frequency generators can be used.
I also  use the DSE to earth ground and loop back. Also insert coils inside the big coil to lower the input wattage on the gate driver.
I am  also in the process of tuning a 1/4 wave coil which is out by 1/2 a turn but still unexpectedly lights an led to brightness.
I noticed when Itsu used the relay coil his input went down and his output went up. So that is worth investigating.
As I have said before I have had  the gate driver voltage unaltered at input voltage for 3 hours whilst powering the load although the frequency gen was separately powered.
I am also using batteries on input to take advantage of the Heavyside component.
I would use a 1/4 wave wire to power the setup but they would be too long.  You need to be up in the 400 mhz range to get your wire lengths down to a few feet  (4 or 5 feet).
EDIT:  I also use ferrite inside the satellite coils to fine tune them for maximum magnetic output.
I also use a gauss meter to ensure the total magnetic output is increased by correct placement of Rx coils.  I place the gauss meter directly against all the coils and check the gauss both wth led on and off - so it's a give and take situation as every coil affects every other coil.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 06, 2019, 04:34:40 PM
I have a tap on my coil at 180hz going down to 137 khz, so I run my set up at 137 khz so that the cheap Chinese frequency generators can be used.
I also  use the DSE to earth ground and loop back. Also insert coils inside the big coil to lower the input wattage on the gate driver.
I am  also in the process of tuning a 1/4 wave coil which is out by 1/2 a turn but still unexpectedly lights an led to brightness.
I noticed when Itsu used the relay coil his input went down and his output went up. So that is worth investigating.
As I have said before I have had  the gate driver voltage unaltered at input voltage for 3 hours whilst powering the load although the frequency gen was separately powered.
I am also using batteries on input to take advantage of the Heavyside component.
I would use a 1/4 wave wire to power the setup but they would be too long.  You need to be up in the 400 mhz range to get your wire lengths down to a few feet  (4 or 5 feet).


   a.king:  Interesting that you placed the coils inside of the main coil. Can you show a video of your set up working?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 06, 2019, 04:39:22 PM
Well, he shared the other day that he hasn't bothered to read what I have written and I returned the compliment.  ;) So who knows? I looked at around 20 or more posts early on before I was writing on this forum a few weeks back and noticed too many mistakes and differences with what we were doing to have any hope that this would go anywhere. I've looked at a few videos and posts more recently and still found similar differences. However, I'm thinking he is trying some new things that may show him curiocities. Nevertheless, I can see that Itsu and G are not getting the basics yet of this. It still looks like G is just trying to find some kind of remote disproof of anything I may be saying and trying to confirm mainstream understanding of these things. So that is the difference. They are limiting themselves to mainstream understandings and using their own parts to try and accomplish something unknown to themselves. That could go on for years I suppose. It is really an attempt to confirm an unknown claim at this point. Just more of the same for these forums, where some mainstream "expert" is directing someone with no OU experience to try this and that and hopefully stumble across some interesting result (maybe with Itsu the hope of OU, and with G some greater efficiency). It has the appearance of trying to replicate something A.King posted, or what I have done, but there was only really a commitment from Itsu to deal with A.King. So he will have to share what he see's as the differences. He was very optimistic about Itsu with me, and that was why I looked at his early postings. But then I saw the problems and told him that there were no real grounds for this going anywhere under the circumstances. I can see years of the same sort of thing trying to replicate the eastern Europeans and being no better for that. That is unfortunate that so much time has been spent without any success. I couldn't imagine spending years of my time doing that with no success. As Mario wrote the other day, there comes a point where this is either going to work for you or it is time to move on to something else. This is why this weekend I'll be starting a new presentation that should help people from the ground up giving the principles of free energy in a very condensed format. That way you can understand what to know and do and what is mistaken and what not to do.

Rick, AKing,

What is the difference between your setups and Itsu setup?


Thanks!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 06, 2019, 04:44:44 PM
That's a step in the right direction. You just have to confirm each part represents the real world as much as possible and the process is actually translatable. Once you have a basic framework in the real world that works for you, you can build off of that. Some things will not translate, like a battery responding. Some of the things we are doing with capacitors are not what people think and may not be translatable unless you know how to do that.

Hi
Have performed this test in the simulator LTspice XVII
I used the same coils as ITSU's but made the test at 200 kHz
with some minor adjustments of the capacitors values to maximise the output voltage.
A load resistor of 10 k-Ohm was chosen.
A resistor is inserted after the ideal square wave generator to simulate ITSU's gate driver impedanse somewhat. The switch SW can be closed
to use the ideal  gate driver (with exteme low impedanse).

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 06, 2019, 05:13:35 PM

   a.king:  Interesting that you placed the coils inside of the main coil. Can you show a video of your set up working?


I don't do videos. This resonance business is just the starting point to replicate Don Smith.  All you have to do is get some cheap Chinese frequency generators and make a gate driver  and MEASURE THE COILS.  You need a damn good LCR meter and I use the same one Rick uses.
Then you can do it yourself very cheaply. How many people tried to replicate Kapanadze and never measured the coils or learnt about 1/4 wave relationships?
Listen up very carefully:  The most important thing Kapanadze said to me personally was and I quote, " YOU HAVE TO MEASURE THE COILS".
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 06, 2019, 05:32:15 PM
,
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 06, 2019, 07:04:14 PM
Well, he shared the other day that he hasn't bothered to read what I have written and I returned the compliment.  ;) So who knows? I looked at around 20 or more posts early on before I was writing on this forum a few weeks back and noticed too many mistakes and differences with what we were doing to have any hope that this would go anywhere. I've looked at a few videos and posts more recently and still found similar differences. However, I'm thinking he is trying some new things that may show him curiocities. Nevertheless, I can see that Itsu and G are not getting the basics yet of this. It still looks like G is just trying to find some kind of remote disproof of anything I may be saying and trying to confirm mainstream understanding of these things. So that is the difference. They are limiting themselves to mainstream understandings and using their own parts to try and accomplish something unknown to themselves. That could go on for years I suppose. It is really an attempt to confirm an unknown claim at this point. Just more of the same for these forums, where some mainstream "expert" is directing someone with no OU experience to try this and that and hopefully stumble across some interesting result (maybe with Itsu the hope of OU, and with G some greater efficiency). It has the appearance of trying to replicate something A.King posted, or what I have done, but there was only really a commitment from Itsu to deal with A.King. So he will have to share what he see's as the differences. He was very optimistic about Itsu with me, and that was why I looked at his early postings. But then I saw the problems and told him that there were no real grounds for this going anywhere under the circumstances. I can see years of the same sort of thing trying to replicate the eastern Europeans and being no better for that. That is unfortunate that so much time has been spent without any success. I couldn't imagine spending years of my time doing that with no success. As Mario wrote the other day, there comes a point where this is either going to work for you or it is time to move on to something else. This is why this weekend I'll be starting a new presentation that should help people from the ground up giving the principles of free energy in a very condensed format. That way you can understand what to know and do and what is mistaken and what not to do.
Rick,
Interesting post. You have expended much time and words attempting to show the mainstream experts the error of their ways by applying conventional electrical thought and measurement processes to their experiemnts. Some time back, I mentioned Peukerts Law in respect of battery capacity. I'm sure that you like me have run Bedini wheel energisers for years on end using the same source and charge LA batteries in rotation, (as taught by John), whilst doing work charging batteries and doing mechanical work. By studying Peukerts Law, it can readily be appreciated why this is possible and on the surface appears surprising and exciting to the unitiated. So, in this respect, I understand why you are excited, as I was to experience what could be done using this type of tech. Also, like you, I have applied this to practical uses running modified motors with more powerful mechanical and solid state setups. The only difference between us is that I understand that conventional principles still apply and what we are really doing is exploiting the vagaries of batteries by carefully tuning loads to the device and as John correctly told us, use decent batteries that are well desulfated by conditioning. We are on a similar page Rick but I choose not to conduct a sermon on the issue.  ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: apecore on July 06, 2019, 07:07:32 PM

Then you can do it yourself very cheaply. How many people tried to replicate Kapanadze and never measured the coils or learnt about 1/4 wave relationships?
Listen up very carefully:  The most important thing Kapanadze said to me personally was and I quote, " YOU HAVE TO MEASURE THE COILS".

Good day a.king21,

Could you be more specific about that Kapanadze statement?
I m in here for a vew years, working on one of the kapanadze setups and such a post make me curious.

Is it just the measuring with the LCR?...  or did Kapanadze pointed to some more details regarding adjusting the coils?


Thanks in advance,

Greetings
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on July 06, 2019, 07:47:22 PM
Hi a.king21,
thanks a lot for your comments.
I have a question about the DSE to earth ground and loop back. Can you explain your grounding in a little bit more detail? Has it something to do with drawing (bottom right) on Page 329 in Ricks Book?
Is your TX Coil directly grounded or do you use Diodes or/and so called "blocking Device" like a variable Capacitor or Resistor? Are your RX Coils simply grounded on one side?
Sorry for all this questions.
I know I miss the point here, but can not figure out, where I am wrong. I don't know, if I made mistakes with retuning, or in general with the proper grounding setup.
Also didn't understand the reason for the so called "blocking Device". Did they simply prevent from to much power, or did they have a another reason?
I can clearly see the gains, if I use the ground with the resonance kit, but in the same time I have more power consumption on the input side. Something must be wrong with my grounding.
Don't want distract from this important tread, but I would be very happy, if you can give me a idea, what I should looking for. If this is crossing a red line, you can also send me a PN if you like. Thank you.
I have a tap on my coil at 180khz going down to 137 khz, so I run my set up at 137 khz so that the cheap Chinese frequency generators can be used.
I also  use the DSE to earth ground and loop back. Also insert coils inside the big coil to lower the input wattage on the gate driver.
I am  also in the process of tuning a 1/4 wave coil which is out by 1/2 a turn but still unexpectedly lights an led to brightness.
I noticed when Itsu used the relay coil his input went down and his output went up. So that is worth investigating.
As I have said before I have had  the gate driver voltage unaltered at input voltage for 3 hours whilst powering the load although the frequency gen was separately powered.
I am also using batteries on input to take advantage of the Heavyside component.
I would use a 1/4 wave wire to power the setup but they would be too long.  You need to be up in the 400 mhz range to get your wire lengths down to a few feet  (4 or 5 feet).
EDIT:  I also use ferrite inside the satellite coils to fine tune them for maximum magnetic output.
I also use a gauss meter to ensure the total magnetic output is increased by correct placement of Rx coils.  I place the gauss meter directly against all the coils and check the gauss both wth led on and off - so it's a give and take situation as every coil affects every other coil.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 06, 2019, 08:58:05 PM
AKing,

I'm curious to know how a common battery captures the Heaviside component as you describe in your posts?  If one accepts Tom Bearden's teaching regarding the Heaviside power flow that supposedly greatly exceeds the Poynting or "S" flow, what is the capture mechanism?  Have you actually been able to confirm the any capture of the Heaviside component?  If so, could you please give more detail?

Regards,
Pm   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 06, 2019, 09:35:16 PM
Hi Itsu,

I have given further thoughts to the magnetic field of your TX coil and it is very likely that you will find similar behaviour i.e. zero magnetic field around the outside center part) at 50-80 kHz away like you found at the 180 kHz or so earlier frequency. 
I think the magnetic field on the outside of the coil would behave just like it does for an air cored 'electromagnet' excited by DC current: relatively strong poles will develop at the top and bottom ends of the coil, while in the middle part, outside the coil (where your black tape is) the magnetic field should be zero or at a minimum. And as you go up or down towards the coil ends the magnetic field strength starts increasing. When the current is AC, the magnetic poles alternate of course at the rate of the frequency.
Sorry for giving you extra tests. 

Regarding the magnetic field inside your TX coil, it should be the strongest and quasi homogeneous. I mention this because mention has been made on putting ferrite cored satellite coils inside the TX coil. I think this goes together with increased action-reaction effect (Lenz law) too. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 06, 2019, 10:01:07 PM

Gyula,

Just seen your latest post while uploading my video below and writing this post.

Please look at the video as i think it contradicts what you just said.
Not sure though my magnetic field probing is correct.
 




I used my current probe (green) with a single closed loop to probe the outside of the big coil in an attempt to outline
the magnetic field.

I also used my normal voltage probe (yellow) this way to probe the outline of the big coil for maximum voltage.


I did this for the normal 192KHz frequency and for a 60KHz lower frequency so 133KHz (retuned for resonance).
No gate driver used,  just the battery operated FG, but with a ground lead to the black lead.

Both cases show we have a max. magnetic field in the middle and a max. RF field at the top.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsGziWV-GuA&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsGziWV-GuA&feature=youtu.be)       

As mentioned, i used a ground lead on the black FG lead, so also connected to the bottom of the var. cap.

When removing the ground lead, the RF signal (yellow) seems to have a dip (null) about 5cm above the bottom,
so not AT the bottom.
This null is the turning point for the phase of the voltage compared to the current, it changes 180°.

Not sure if this is significant, but reminds me of you thinking that "my TX coil behaves like a vertical antenna with a size little
longer in length than a quarter wave antenna but much less in length than a half wave antenna".
The magnetic peak however stays at the middle then.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 06, 2019, 10:35:47 PM
SO ITSU PLEASE USE THREE COILS PUT TWO HORIZONTALS TOP AND BOTTOM AND A VERTICAL COIL ALL IN THE MIDDLE ALL IN SERIES RESONANCE AND SEE WHAT HAPPEN.


Hi Seychelles,


well,  this is what happens, all 3 satellite coils leds go on.
Running on the FG only.

I could join their outputs and feed into a supercap for measuring the current, but probably
it still will be less then the input current (at the same voltages).

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66z4Kr_DEeQ

Satellite coils are in parallel resonance.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 06, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for your efforts.  Okay that it contradicts to my above post, we learn all the time. 

We need to evaluate the results. I think your small and shorted wire loop for indicating the current is ok. 
It is also interesting that current maximum remains in the middle while the voltage minimum moves up from
the bottom when you use the ground.  One would expect them both move.  Let's approach this otherwise:
what is approximate wire length in your TX coil?  When I thought of comparing the TX circuit to a vertical antenna, 
it came from a Tesla coil voltage distribution.  As the Corum brothers wrote it is a quarter wave helical resonator, with maximum voltage
at the top and minimum at the bottom if tuned correctly. 
Will be back later tomorrow only. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 06, 2019, 10:56:43 PM
So many questions:


Re Heavyside component:  Rick covers it extensively in one of his videos. One disruptive discharge circuit can power a string of batteries.  Not  just a second  battery.  Yes I have seen it and you can use common household components.  I have shown Rick the video but it is not for public.  Sorry. (It would hit Rick's business).


Re coil relationships:  Don Smith covers it as does Rick in his book on Don Smith and in some of Rick's videos.


Re grounding:  The cap is a blocking device. After the cap and between the ground you can use a bridge rectifier and feed back to the input.
The only problem I see is that you can get into Tesla's one wire system and load the input - so you have to experiment with different values of capacitor and other diodes to see which works the best. The best way is the way Benitez does it in his first patent. (Riick is going to do a kit but I don't know which of Benitez's systems)
Re coil measurement:  I was asking Kapanadze if special components were required.  My team needed a 100 MW set up. Maybe in builds of 10 MW.  Kapanadze said the only requirement was the cable or wire required which would have to be accurately measured. Then he seemed to think that ordinary off the shelf components were ok.
(In Rick's case he states that just one cm out and you can lose the effect.)
I enclose a photo of some of the transformers we were going to use  to input into the grid .





Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 06, 2019, 11:17:01 PM
Ha, Ha A, now your jesting aren't you? I know a few people with solar and most of the time
they are selling power to the grid, i'm not sure how it works but its a module that does it, it
fits on a shelf on the garage wall !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 07, 2019, 12:31:26 AM
One of the best comments I have read on this forum.  :)

Okay that it contradicts to my above post, we learn all the time. 
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 07, 2019, 12:58:05 AM
Hi Rick,

I knew you would jump on it, that is mainly why I worded it like that.   ;)

Here is one of the most catching comments I have read on this forum.

There were 15 total as I had 4 smaller coils with larger bulbs as well (one under the table and 4 at the
top at one point--10 big coils, 4 smaller, and 1 on a ferrite rod). There were 75 small coils with LEDs
totaling over 2W. So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input.
It is a pity if you refrain from proving it and it remains a claim. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 07, 2019, 01:05:48 AM
Hi Rick,

I knew you would jump on it, that is mainly why I worded it like that.   ;)

Here is one of the most catching comments I have read on this forum.
It is a pity if you refrain from proving it and it remains a claim. 

Gyula
Gyula, Well I assume that's Rick's device but what of Itsu it's pointless me asking any one in the group,
but what exactly are Itsu's figures to date ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 07, 2019, 01:17:45 AM

AG

When I said 10MW I meant 100 MEGAWATTS.  That is what 100 MW means and that is the size of the transformers we were intending Kapanadze to work with. I don't care if you don't believe me.  I brought you the Aquarium 2 to study so lets leave it at that.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 07, 2019, 02:43:32 AM
Hoppy,
I think if you guys listen a little bit more to what I have actually shared that you would be surprised how much we may agree in things. This is why I am talking so much about assumptions. You can call it sermons or whatever, but mostly assumptions stand in the way of progress.
Now I have been making at distinction between the words mainstream and conventional. While these words are often interchangeable, I'm wanting to make an important difference between mainstream theory which assumes various limitations of focus and possibilities with technology and energy. But Conventional usage and products actually contain here and there all the processes that mainstream low level popular opinion denies. People do not realize this because the same things are just repeated over and over again so people just assume mainstream theories are absolute and exhaustive.
So mainstream people are not experts at all. Any expert promoting the limits of mainstream theories are either lying or are not expert at all. They are merely ignorant of existing technology that is over 100 years old. They are merely college level, and probably having limited experience with real world technology. Yes, many people specialize and never see but a sample of what is out there.
Again, I am not saying that conventional processes and understanding is false. I am saying that many of the limiting claims of people are just not true. Any study of the history of science shows how wrong each generation it in this respect. It is laughable. Like Kirchhoff is not false, but merely a special circumstance which just happens to be what most people limit themselves to. Do you see what I mean?
As for Bedini, he never really properly understood battery charging because he never took the time to do proper controlled testing over any length of time. He demonstrated himself to be the worst scientist I have ever seen. Mostly 5 minute tests. It was always people like me that did thousands of tests over long periods of time. Then he would write about it as if he had done the work. As far as I have found in my extensive research on him, that around 2011 he became committed changing his story and giving out all sorts of false information to people as I have mentioned. You cannot rely one what he has shared unfortunately. I'm not saying you have done that, as I speak to everyone in general. Be careful. That is why no one is to be considered an authority. Even Tesla was way off in several things. This is why I say we have to "test all things and hold fast to the truth." But what John said about batteries and charging was vastly conflicting, and many times you didn't understand the context of his statement unless you were in the shop with us the hour he made that comment, as it was about some context he didn't properly share. This was really bad.
If I understand you in your using the word "vagaries" that you are thinking that there is just a very unexpected and inexplicable thing happening in the battery and maybe not even predictable or repeatable. Well, I have been at this 15 years full time and this is very real science that is just more than mainstream practice. I have long demystified all this stuff and Bedini's wild bar talk storytelling.  But batteries are only the basic first stage experience in this tech. It does not depend on using a battery to experience these processes. I'm personally burned out with batteries and motors but that is all that is permissible for the public.

Rick,
Interesting post. You have expended much time and words attempting to show the mainstream experts the error of their ways by applying conventional electrical thought and measurement processes to their experiemnts. Some time back, I mentioned Peukerts Law in respect of battery capacity. I'm sure that you like me have run Bedini wheel energisers for years on end using the same source and charge LA batteries in rotation, (as taught by John), whilst doing work charging batteries and doing mechanical work. By studying Peukerts Law, it can readily be appreciated why this is possible and on the surface appears surprising and exciting to the unitiated. So, in this respect, I understand why you are excited, as I was to experience what could be done using this type of tech. Also, like you, I have applied this to practical uses running modified motors with more powerful mechanical and solid state setups. The only difference between us is that I understand that conventional principles still apply and what we are really doing is exploiting the vagaries of batteries by carefully tuning loads to the device and as John correctly told us, use decent batteries that are well desulfated by conditioning. We are on a similar page Rick but I choose not to conduct a sermon on the issue.  ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 07, 2019, 02:47:05 AM
A.king,
The transformer looks a lot smaller than a 100MW transformer. What was the specs on that one?

Re coil measurement:  I was asking Kapanadze if special components were required.  My team needed a 100 MW set up. Maybe in builds of 10 MW.  Kapanadze said the only requirement was the cable or wire required which would have to be accurately measured. Then he seemed to think that ordinary off the shelf components were ok.
(In Rick's case he states that just one cm out and you can lose the effect.)
I enclose a photo of some of the transformers we were going to use  to input into the grid .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 07, 2019, 03:22:40 AM
AG

When I said 10MW I meant 100 MEGAWATTS.  That is what 100 MW means and that is the size of the transformers we were intending Kapanadze to work with. I don't care if you don't believe me.  I brought you the Aquarium 2 to study so lets leave it at that.
thanks for the reply, but no it wasn't that I didn't believe you i just thought you were or might be comparing the difference between grid hardware and TK's efficient capabilities.

Concerning TKs device I think I have a good idea how it works, but that doesn't mean i know exactly.
regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 07, 2019, 03:48:33 AM
G,
Wow, I appreciate the effort.

Well I think this comment from me was not the most catching of what I have claimed here. Nevertheless I see why you say this.

Haha, I did prove it already. I proved it to myself in the real world. How could I prove it to anyone else? At the meeting this was one of the least impressive demonstrations and wasn't a big priority. But the guys did put all the caps on the coils and arrange the coils. They were satisfied with the demonstrations, but most of them already had these kits and understood that they could do that already from their own testing. They are on their own private forums doing such things. The meeting wasn't about trying to prove OU to skeptics, but to better understand the principles of OU which I am striving to better teach on each day.

Now you still are not expecting me to try and prove this was 8W for 3/4W input through video, pictures or word (well I did say so in word)? How could I possibly do that? Put meters on all the LEDs and somehow try and show all of them at once, while showing each connection? And how could a video or pictures prove anything when someone could easily enough just have some unseen additional transmitter broadcasting? And people could do the same thing to make a disproof claim. People can fake videos or be mistaken. I will never encourage people to merely believe what I say I have experienced. And putting a bunch of meters around such a setup would definitely affect the broadcast.

So I don't refrain from proving this, but I refrain from trying to fool myself or others in claiming to try and prove something that would be impossible to prove over this medium.

Anyway, everyone at the meeting was plenty convinced that there was more than 3/4W output on some 90 coils, with the potential to have 500 coils do the same thing. Again, let's say we divide the 0.75W into all these coils. Was there more than 0.04W per large 3W bulb (0.6W total) and 0.002W for each smaller LED (0.15W total). That would be like the 3W bulbs only running at 12V@ 0.0033A (3.3ma) and 3V@ 0.0007A (0.7ma or 700ua). Of course the meters show these A numbers a few decimals to the left, but anyone there could see that these bigger bulbs do not blind you with the low numbers if we are assuming nothing more than input power dispersed in these 90 so bulbs. The little red ones are also much brighter than those numbers would allow. We run them at various brightness, and under 1ma gives very little response.

But again, while the goal for many people is to prove OU, that is not the goal of many people who have long experienced OU. You guys are new at this and for whatever reasons have not understood how OU works or stumble yourselves by this confusion of looking for someone to prove OU over the internet. I also don't believe and know for a fact that many people are only pretending to disbelieve OU.
Most people who have OU and are using it are not going to be online talking about it. They are either off making money with it in various ways, or are private people not wanting to draw attention to themselves. Many people who have trying to show something have just be ignored or rejected, so why invite that trouble? The most important YouTube videos on the subject get very low views, and a good number of them are right here on this OU forum. All the good stuff just gets buried in disinfo diversion from it. And many other mistaken or fake OU claims get the attention.

Anyway, G, I did not come here to try and prove OU. I came here because someone else tried to do that against my advice. I came here to teach all of you the principles of OU so that you could do that in countless ways. And that was done. Hopefully I'll get all this more organized over the next few days to finalize that teaching in basic form. But I did give you the same level of claim that Itsu has. And I did this to show all of you your mistakes in your double standard assumptions. According to your expectations on this thread I fulfilled the conditions because a god number of those 18 people, and others from other meetings (California, Lansing, and Canada) are reading this thread over the last few weeks (and some of them have "Confirmation of OU devices and claims" of what I showed them and what they have personally experienced). Others have just my kit. Yet you believe one person's claims that is not in the real world in front of you. If Itsu had been to my meetings and then replicated the same, then what would you say to that? Probably that it was not proof, because it really wouldn't be proof. My point is that all this is on the same level and it doesn't matter how many people speak for or against a claim, or show pictures or videos. If I show you my boat running while charging another battery at the same rate, or a fan, or whatever, can that prove anything when done with video? I showed the black box running for an hour with video. The input stayed the same for an hour. Can you run a 6W load for an hour and the 12AH battery stay the same while such loads were also being powered from that? No. So what kind of proof are you expecting here? And why the double standard?

Hi Rick,
I knew you would jump on it, that is mainly why I worded it like that.   ;)
Here is one of the most catching comments I have read on this forum.
"There were 15 total as I had 4 smaller coils with larger bulbs as well (one under the table and 4 at the top at one point--10 big coils, 4 smaller, and 1 on a ferrite rod). There were 75 small coils with LEDs totaling over 2W. So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input."
It is a pity if you refrain from proving it and it remains a claim. 
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 07, 2019, 04:04:52 AM
AG,
Maybe the real thing your comment here is pointing out is a lack of knowing what is being attempted here? I have destroyed the misconception of everyone in their thinking you can prove anything over the internet. So this makes pointless so many postings. It forces people to do science for themselves and prove to themselves what everyone was looking for others to do. So now we see Itsu says he doesn't read what I have said so why would anyone think what he was doing resembled what I am doing?
It's not merely a question of what the figures are but what do they imply? What is the basis and context of those figures? What is the relevance to anyone here? He is admittedly in uncharted territory here. His postings are curious but very limited. I'm not saying they are useless by any means. But I fail to understand the goal or purpose of this. Maybe that is part of your question as well.

Gyula, Well I assume that's Rick's device but what of Itsu it's pointless me asking any one in the group,
but what exactly are Itsu's figures to date ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 07, 2019, 05:37:20 AM
A.king,
The transformer looks a lot smaller than a 100MW transformer. What was the specs on that one?
It was just one section of an industrial complex - there was a whole row of these monsters. It was a disused coal mine that was converted to an industrial park. We had options on two factory units at the time. I was new to this stuff at the time so took a few photos and  some short videos. I have found another photo of some of the cages housing these trafos.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 07, 2019, 07:10:02 AM
Just for you Rick.....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 07, 2019, 08:41:57 AM
Thanks Itsu for spoiling me with this great video. What you said about connecting all the
to a super cap and beefing up the big coil driver will be very interesting. Thanks again
from 4 degrees south of the equator right in the middle of the INDIAN OCEAN.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 07, 2019, 09:07:38 AM
So now we see Itsu says he doesn't read what I have said so why would anyone think what he was doing resembled what I am doing?

Rick,

How is your progress on video?

When you release it, then it will be visible what is different between your and Itsu concept.
Until then I don't have a clue about resemblance or difference between yours and Itsu design.
I tried to connect dots from your posts, but I failed.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 07, 2019, 09:58:11 AM
AG,
Maybe the real thing your comment here is pointing out is a lack of knowing what is being attempted here? I have destroyed the misconception of everyone in their thinking you can prove anything over the internet. So this makes pointless so many postings. It forces people to do science for themselves and prove to themselves what everyone was looking for others to do. So now we see Itsu says he doesn't read what I have said so why would anyone think what he was doing resembled what I am doing?
It's not merely a question of what the figures are but what do they imply? What is the basis and context of those figures? What is the relevance to anyone here? He is admittedly in uncharted territory here. His postings are curious but very limited. I'm not saying they are useless by any means. But I fail to understand the goal or purpose of this. Maybe that is part of your question as well.
Yes there is some truth in what you repeat here, but if we read from out side the test tube lab we might get a different view from others more factual knowledge especially when it's in a different tongue and where it's not suppressed by federal corporate greed, your transmitting and charging particles and capturing them down the line I did read Henry Morays publications
and Don smiths but you would be lucky to get any of them to work unless one knows the basic principals behind it all.

There was an article on you tube by a retired Turkish university 70 year profesor guy who gave away one of the secrets that wasn't very well thought out concerning electron travel time in different materials that might be of interest and then there is the TK's use of the caduceus coil it's all a big give away, but never investigated by any of the guys here not even Itsu to my knowledge and then there is Nelson  ;D
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 07, 2019, 10:11:26 AM

If I understand you in your using the word "vagaries" that you are thinking that there is just a very unexpected and inexplicable thing happening in the battery and maybe not even predictable or repeatable. Well, I have been at this 15 years full time and this is very real science that is just more than mainstream practice. I have long demystified all this stuff and Bedini's wild bar talk storytelling.  But batteries are only the basic first stage experience in this tech. It does not depend on using a battery to experience these processes. I'm personally burned out with batteries and motors but that is all that is permissible for the public.
Yes, eccept with a lot of observation through experimentation - yes, years of it like you - the vagaries become understood as being normal characteristics of batteries under different operating conditions. That is why I can, like you, run a 6W load for an hour and the 12AH battery stay the same while such loads were also being powered from that. Now that does not infer that I want a pis.....g contest with you on best performance.  ;) All I am saying is that when laborius and properly conducted load tests are carried out, it is clear to me that the performance of a given DUT can be explained in conventional / mainstream terms. Now, I don't expect you to agree that I may be right on this issue, just to agree to disagree without launching into a tirade.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 07, 2019, 10:45:22 AM
Hi Itsu,
Thanks for your efforts.  Okay that it contradicts to my above post, we learn all the time. 

We need to evaluate the results. I think your small and shorted wire loop for indicating the current is ok. 
It is also interesting that current maximum remains in the middle while the voltage minimum moves up from
the bottom when you use the ground.  One would expect them both move.  Let's approach this otherwise:
what is approximate wire length in your TX coil?  When I thought of comparing the TX circuit to a vertical antenna, 
it came from a Tesla coil voltage distribution.  As the Corum brothers wrote it is a quarter wave helical resonator, with maximum voltage
at the top and minimum at the bottom if tuned correctly. 
Will be back later tomorrow only. 

Gyula

Gyula,


Data on the big coil is here:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534327/#msg534327


We have 145 turns on a 16cm diameter former,  meaning a circumference of 50.27cm.
This comes to a coil wire length of 72.8m

If you consider this a ¼ wave length, then the full wavelength will be 291.2m so 1.029 MHz.


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 07, 2019, 11:50:43 AM
Yes well, so whats a DUT a 'dead universal transistor' ?  ;D if your going to use brain teasers can you declare them please  some where in your post ;D

And please be aware it's not just that you live your life - it's how you live your life that's important!

AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 07, 2019, 04:09:28 PM
Yes well, so whats a DUT a 'dead universal transistor' ?  ;D if your going to use brain teasers can you declare them please  some where in your post ;D

And please be aware it's not just that you live your life - it's how you live your life that's important!

AG
Device under test.  ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 07, 2019, 07:17:32 PM
Thanks Itsu for spoiling me with this great video. What you said about connecting all the
to a super cap and beefing up the big coil driver will be very interesting. Thanks again
from 4 degrees south of the equator right in the middle of the INDIAN OCEAN.

seychelles,

I hooked up the 3 satellite coils DC output together and to a 15F supercap stack.

Running the big coil with the gate driver on 12V battery and have a ground lead to its negative rail and thus
to the variable cap.

Still running 193Khz square wave input 50% duty cycle from a FG also on a battery.

Input into the gate driver is 12.4V @ 130mA.

The voltage across the supercap stack is 1.5V and climbing @ 31mA rms, so it will take a while for the supercaps
reach 12V.

So these 3 coils produce about ¼ of the input current in their present positions.

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


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 07, 2019, 10:02:16 PM
Itsu:  I noticed an anomaly when I measured the voltage across the 12 volt 4 watt bulbs when powered by a satellite coil  The brightness indicated maybe 3 to 4 volts but the volt meter measures 0.2 of  a volt and less sometimes.  I do not know if the meter cannot read the voltages at this frequency. Also the bulb runs cold.  I wonder if you could check that out please.
IE the voltage powering the 4 watt bulb and the coldness versus a comparable brightness  of a 4 watt bulb normally powered.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 07, 2019, 10:28:45 PM

A.king21,

i will check on that, i use a 12V 3.5W led bulb on a satellite coil with No rectification, just the coil and the parallel cap (5nF).

My Fluke 8060A true RMS meter reads 2.2V (AC mode) and my scope shows the below signal.
Yellow voltage across the bulb
green current through the bulb
red power calculated from V and I

I know from experience how multimeters can fool you when out of frequency range (most go to 10Khz max).
The bulb back reads 1°C above ambient (24° compared to 23°).

Gate driver is grounded

I will try severall combinations.


Itsu 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 07, 2019, 11:09:44 PM
Hi Itsu,

Okay on your TX coil data, thanks. The wire length is too short to behave like a quarter wave coil on the
190 or 130 kHz frequencies so I cannot really compare it to a Tesla coil at this low frequency. 
Around 1 MHz it may more easily behave like that if operated as a Tesla coil, with an open end on its top.
In this latter case, the current distribution alongside the coil would be like having a maximum value at the
bottom and decreasing towards the top to a minimum value, just in the opposite way the voltage distribution
would behave when the tuning is correct. The reason for the minimum current at the top is that electrons
cannot 'go' beyond the top end of the coil wire, a small leakage may happen at a high enough top voltage
maximum, helped by some top capacity load. 
Thanks,
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 07, 2019, 11:28:05 PM
A.king,
I think you have an oscilloscope and function generator.  If so, you can check your DMM's AC frequency response
by measuring the output voltage level across the output of the function generator, starting from say some hundred Hz
and then at some kHz, then at some ten and then some hundred kHz while you monitor the output voltage by the
oscilloscope too.  The waveform chosen should be sine wave, for a start. 
The scope shows peak to peak amplitude, you need to divide it by 2.81 to get the RMS value DMMs usually show AC.
This is correct only for sine waves within the specs,  distorted waves may have differing RMS values already.
IF you have a TRUE RMS type DMM, then the AC frequency range may go up to the some ten kHz range and higher,
otherwise they good up to perhaps some hundred Hz, and sine wave only.   
Another problem may be when the LED bulb simply cuts the "caps" of the sine wave coming from the resonant
LC circuit, you have no more sine wave, see itsu's scope shot on the voltage wave shapes.

Of course if your DMM has a Operation Manual, then the specifications in it may include AC frequency range for current
and voltage.  Unfortunately, some DMMs do not have manuals. Searching on the web by the type number may brings hits.
 
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 08, 2019, 12:29:35 AM
Ok
 Why do you (all) use LED's with maybe "strange circuitry" inside destroying "normal" results?
 Distorting your logical thinking.
 For instance that strange ripple. Can't be overtones from the input?
I'm always using resistors .
Am I an odd person in this regards?

LED's  Dc, Ac?? 12V with "knees" at <4.8volt???

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 08, 2019, 12:34:52 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4529&v=EcFWuchjaqk
The most stunning demonstration of Benitez's free energy patent anywhere on the web EVER!  With scope shots for you scope guys.


1 hour 15 minutes in.  Then you can go back and find out the circuit diagram and compare it to Ed Gray's system (which is also analysed) and of course Bedini.(lol)


G  I hear you.  Trouble is my experiment is also using the DSE and I have to have a neon bulb with resistor over one of the caps to stop from getting shocked by mains voltage. The transients are too high for me to risk the scope. (I must get a 1000 x probe).
I'll have a detailed look at your post tomorrow  and figure something out.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 08, 2019, 05:21:19 AM
Thanks Itsu. Have a great day.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 08, 2019, 06:00:03 AM
Hoppy:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu1hNQsr9YnkIjFkMAc3Npw


1 hour 45 minutes in ...


 Is this the same circuit you were using?  ie Gabriel Kron's negative resistor schematic (more or less ie with variations). So the battery voltage across a load ie a bulb is zero - yet the bulb still lights??
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 08, 2019, 03:57:57 PM
Hoppy:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu1hNQsr9YnkIjFkMAc3Npw (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu1hNQsr9YnkIjFkMAc3Npw)


1 hour 45 minutes in ...


 Is this the same circuit you were using?  ie Gabriel Kron's negative resistor schematic (more or less ie with variations). So the battery voltage across a load ie a bulb is zero - yet the bulb still lights??
Very similar but there has to be voltage across the bulb to light. How is it being measured?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 08, 2019, 04:13:12 PM
   Bulbs will light using magnetic current, but the voltmeter won't register the voltage when the frequency is beyond it's limits. 
   If a scope were used, there would be a voltage reading at the bulb. Most of us know about this. But to say that there is NO voltage reading, zero, and therefore, there is NO voltage at the bulb, is wrong. There is voltage, or the bulb would not light, as Hoppy mentioned. We know there is voltage, the question is what do the readings on a scope show, and what is the amperage, so that the output can be figured. Otherwise, talk of zero voltage, is not correct, nor zero readings.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 09, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
...
 If Itsu had been to my meetings and then replicated the same, then what would you say to that?
...
Honestly Rick, would you let anyone measure anything relevant to your resonant kit setup on such a meeting? 
Would you let Itsu attempt looping back the outputs to replace the power supply? It could be done within 1 hour 
work by using full wave diode bridges across the LC tanks of the 10 or 11 big receiver units (as per your thoughtful 
calculations the many small receiver units would not be needed) and collect the DC outputs in a bigger puffer capacitor. 

This latter then would feed the gate driver IC directly, provided the DC level holds up in the puffer capacitor at least for
some seconds (and hopefully for much longer),  that would already indicate the real strength of the received 8W power
you claim. This way the participants on that particular meeting, say 8-10 people (or even 18), could see the performance
in the real world. 
(The function generator could still be run from its own supply because the input of the gate driver needs only a few mW
drive level, negligible to the claimed 8 W output. And a discrete square wave generator can be built for the job.)

I hope those participants you mentioned "as a good number of them reading this thread" have been indeed reading
this post too and next time they will 'demand' the loop back attempt...   8)

My kind message for them: Folks, electric power going into LED bulbs cannot be evaluated numerically by the naked eye,
LED bulbs are strongly nonlinear devices. Please see this post here and think the spectacular LED brightnesses over:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534508/#msg534508
   
And no offense but I would believe Itsu 100% what he would have experienced if he had been either a witness there,
or if after seeing it he would replicate it and show it in his video: I would certainly believe him. Many members
(who care to follow his activity) have known him for years here and on other forums.   

And why Itsu would report back a false result after his succesful replication ??  I would trust him 100% and so would
several other members here too. 
For he would have learned from you a wonderful circuit setup...  and the other participants present in the real world too. 

And I would really be happy that the 8 W (or even only say 4 W) is indeed present at the outputs of the satellite LC circuits
while less than 1 W is consumed from the 8 W (or 4 W) output to maintain operation. Rick I would acknowledge I was wrong. 

Gyula

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 09, 2019, 01:12:27 AM
    Guys:
   I'll second that... I would also trust itsu's findings, 100%. Regardless of the test results, being good or bad. Anyone can be wrong, but he tells and shows it how it is. Whether it's positive results, or not so positive results.  But, the proof is in the pudding, and lighting just a 10w bulb, as well as a feed back path, would help to turn the tide, for me.
   I would trust what certain people show in their videos. Not all devices are faked, just mostly... and that is why we are all so skeptical about what some people say, and what they show. Any OU type of claims need to be verified, that is what this thread is here for. Rick told me to put up or shut up, when I bring up the subject of proof. I guess he forgot where he's at.
   We are here to learn... All of us. Without long drawn out sermons, telling us how and what to believe. Thanks, but I got that one down, already. Waiting for the real self runner...before diving in, to unknown waters.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 09, 2019, 08:53:11 AM
Many thousands of people already have OU...

So many liars and delusionals in this world. Very sad.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 09, 2019, 10:02:27 AM
I don't know, it is something I have wondered for a long time. Are they all liars Tesla, Morray, Newman, Meyers, Searl, Wagner, Hans Coeler and the list goes on and some as Searl and Meyers have done jail time but does that mean they were all liars or is there a true conspiracy to keep it all under wraps or is it human greed I don't know for sure yet after 15 years of looking into this stuff. This is part of why I don't even experiment with some things such as energy from the sky or ground because what if you did figure it out and powered your house from the ground do you really think you wouldn't just be thrown in jail for stealing power.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 09, 2019, 10:09:57 AM

Thanks Guys, for the trusts,  but i find it amazing that anyone would doubt any results a replicator would present.

Of course anyone can make a mistake, but thats where the video's are for so anyone can see what is being done.
If you think something is wrong it can be discussed and corrected.

Anyway i always try to keep my posts short and clear so won't comment on it any further.




A.king21,


i tried the last days all kind of combinations for the 12V led bulb connected to a satellite coil for abnormal
cooling.

Grounded the big coil,  grounded the satellite coil, grounded both, satellite coil inside the big coil, outside,
etc. but the temperature of the bulb stays about 1°C above ambient.

I will continue for some days, while building 2 additional satellite coils.


When i have 10 satellite coils i will put them around the big coil and once again try loopback via the
supercap stack for a final attempt to have it maintain itself.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 09, 2019, 11:13:04 AM
Thanks ITSU for your efforts.
 I'm hoping that you will use resistances instead of LED's in this coming test.
If you are using the satellite coils as before in parallel resonance it is obvious that these in the resonance situation are best conformed wih high Ohm resistors or anyhow with other very HIGH Ohmic loads as they go extremely high Ohmic then.
A parallel resonance circuit loaded with LED's will only be "clamped" mismatched and the Q-value totally destroyd.
You can also then skip the FRB's.
[[ Maybe a high Ohmic (load)resistor before two in opposite direction LED's is maybe a choice that also gives a visual option. ]]

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 09, 2019, 11:32:03 AM
Hi overcurrent,

Please understand that the inventors you listed had different devices from the one we are discussing here. 
And most of the members here do not reject overunity this forum is dedicated to, this is why most of them are
here to find such setups.

The closest to this energy transfer by series LC TX circuit magnetically coupled to satellite LC RX setup under
discussion here would be Tesla's magnifying transmitter. You surely know that Tesla wrote about only a few
percent energy transfer loss when using the Earth as the conductor for electric current while he considered the
wireless energy transfer done by broadcast through the air as a very lossy system. And Morgan stopped financing
Tesla the moment he realized he could not put meters at the customer side to milk Tesla's energy transfer system. 

If someone would figure out a device with which he could power his house and this would be revealed to the utility
providers, he would very likely be punished in many countries. But you could easily disguise your setup by building a
wind generator or solar panel array of a certain size, even use a grid tie inverter to feed back energy to the utility mains
and you would keep silence on your real device.  After registering your solar or wind source with a grid tie inverter to
the utility provider, they will not bother about you.   Or you use your device to supply say 2/3 of your monthly energy
consumption and you pay for the rest. All I mean there can be several options.

Gyula


I don't know, it is something I have wondered for a long time. Are they all liars Tesla, Morray, Newman, Meyers, Searl, Wagner, Hans Coeler and the list goes on and some as Searl and Meyers have done jail time but does that mean they were all liars or is there a true conspiracy to keep it all under wraps or is it human greed I don't know for sure yet after 15 years of looking into this stuff. This is part of why I don't even experiment with some things such as energy from the sky or ground because what if you did figure it out and powered your house from the ground do you really think you wouldn't just be thrown in jail for stealing power.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 09, 2019, 12:10:57 PM
Hi gyulasun

Thanks for the reply, it does seem a sad state of affairs if hiding it would be the answer to such a wonderful thing for humanity as Tesla said todays is theirs and the future for which he worked would be his but I don't know if it will be in my lifetime. Anyway I think I am off topic and will say no more on the philosophy and leave the thread to those doing this great work. I tell you I haven't been to this site so much as when this thread started I love it and I do plan to get expirementing on this but I will need to start further back in Rick's teachings to get up to speed.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 09, 2019, 12:24:23 PM
Hi Arne,

While I fully agree on the use of resistors, notice that they do have self capacitance and inductance which
should already be considered at the 180-200 kHz range when using them as loads. There are special, 
non inductive resistor types for the many kOhm ranges but they cost more money though.

Normal metal film or carbon resistors could be used if one such receiver unit with its kOhm resistor load 
would be measured whether the current through the resistor remains in phase with the voltage across it 
(the latter is the resonant LC voltage itself of course).

It is possible the inherent, even small reactances of metal film or carbon resistors can be embedded in the
LC circuit, so no or negligible phase shift in the current versus the voltage would happen. 
By checking this, reliable power outputs can be had then. 

As is known, maximum power transfer is insured by loading the resonant LC circuit impedance by the same value
load resistance.  This is simple to test: the resonant voltage amplitude across the RX LC tank gets halved when
the load resistance equals the unloaded LC tank impedance.

@overcurrent
Okay and I wish you good luck in experimenting.

 Gyula


Thanks ITSU for your efforts.
 I'm hoping that you will use resistances instead of LED's in this coming test.
If you are using the satellite coils as before in parallel resonance it is obvious that these in the resonance situation are best conformed wih high Ohm resistors or anyhow with other very HIGH Ohmic loads as they go extremely high Ohmic then.
A parallel resonance circuit loaded with LED's will only be "clamped" mismatched and the Q-value totally destroyd.
You can also then skip the FRB's.
[[ Maybe a high Ohmic (load)resistor before two in opposite direction LED's is maybe a choice that also gives a visual option. ]]

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 09, 2019, 12:27:47 PM
Thanks ITSU for your efforts.
 I'm hoping that you will use resistances instead of LED's in this coming test.
If you are using the satellite coils as before in parallel resonance it is obvious that these in the resonance situation are best conformed wih high Ohm resistors or anyhow with other very HIGH Ohmic loads as they go extremely high Ohmic then.
A parallel resonance circuit loaded with LED's will only be "clamped" mismatched and the Q-value totally destroyd.
You can also then skip the FRB's.
[[ Maybe a high Ohmic (load)resistor before two in opposite direction LED's is maybe a choice that also gives a visual option. ]]

Regards Arne

seaad,

well, for the loopback test i would not need any leds nor resistors, just feed back the DC into the supercap.

A question which is not being answered yet is whether or not the satellite coils need to be in either parallel
or series resonance.

I have hinted a few times that i now use parallel for the satellites (series for the big coil), because of the
better impedance match, but nobody has specifically corrected me that i should use one or the other.

Perhaps A.king21 can shed some light on that.


Thanks,   Itsu.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 09, 2019, 12:33:20 PM
Hi Itsu,
My understanding from Rick's video and posts is that in his RX LC circuits the coil is in parallel with the tuning capacitor.
So they are all parallel resonant LC circuits and directly drive the LED bulbs or individual small LEDs. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: endlessoceans on July 09, 2019, 12:44:29 PM
I don't know, it is something I have wondered for a long time. Are they all liars Tesla, Morray, Newman, Meyers, Searl, Wagner, Hans Coeler a......

Just depends what you think they were lying about.  You see.....and listen carefully here.....if you read their patents VERY carefully (and they were very well worded!!) there is NOTHING in them that indicates OU.  NOTHING

But people love to read into things especially when the mind feverishly wishes for a dream.  Tesla talked about millions of horsepower and power generated but after all those years he was still hooked to the grid.  For ALL his experiments he was hooked to mains town supply. 

As far as the other inventors go, many were working with exotic materials such a radium or other isotopes.  Searl is an old buffoon who tried all sorts of magnetic motors and told fanciful stories of his one working motor which lost gravity and shot intp the atmosphere never to be seen again  LOOOOL   ::) ::) ::) ::).   He should go to prison for that nonsense.  Newman still worked with big batteries and took thousand's of dollars in investors money  Also jail worthy.  Moray was a true scientist but also worked with exotic materials and never disclosed the contents of his tube.  Many other inventors are often associated with OU sites but the fact is their patents did not state OU.  People see what they want to see


SOME of those patents had Terms such as "self sustaining" that Rick Friedrich grabs onto...….but that does not mean OU.  Self sustaining …….for how long???  Huh.  A flashlight is self sustaining.  A rechargeable power tool that does not need to be plugged into the wall is self sustaining but for how long?  By the true definition of the term....a vehicle is self sustaining because you can fill the tank and drive 400 mile...…    None of those patents said or even alluded to INFINITE self sustaining.   Yes...energy is never destroyed but it is converted into heat and light and all sort and that conversion costs you something.   


These stories about coils cooling to freezing and cold lightbulbs are nonsense.  Even large halogen loads which you run off a tesla hairpin that you can dunk into water without getting electrocuted are scalding hot on the glass....why?? because there is resistance at the filament in order to generate heat and light.


Tesla was a brilliant man and his patents on one wire transmission were cutting edge.   Rick....

You have pretty big capacity batteries with lEDS that hooked a certain way can run for days.    Your batteries are a still dropping down after all that cycling.  I find it amusing that on one hand you say that NOTHING can be proven on the internet and yet that's the very thing you attempt to do.   BTW saying that nothing can be proven on the internet is rubbish.  You sit there and conduct some very good demonstrations (yes that's a compliment) and draw some accurate conclusions and yet on the other hand when somebody asks you to take all these little black boxes and show 3 batteries being charged for the price of one or a output looped back to the source you come up with the laughable "Im sorry but nothing can be proven on the internet and btw this circuit is not perfectly tuned.   ::) ::) ::) ::).  "back in my last seminar I showed it running perpetually blah blah blah and thousands have OU!!.  You yourself said Bedini was a liar and misled people and yet you are no different. 

You know what...Don Smith said exactly the same thing over and over and yet the few guys that took a measurement to his device always showed it as slowly running down.

You may think I am angry or a paid shill (which is laughable) but I am not the one making massive claims and keeping people on the carrot stick for how many decades now??

Oh and btw....mixing what the Bible says with your kit selling is just plain mentally ill.  Are you trying to run a church or sell a charger?  Jesus himself threw out the money changers from the temple because the things of the flesh have nothing to do with the things of the spirit.  So if you want to start a church then go do that but please read the Bible first before prostituting it.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 09, 2019, 01:00:40 PM
Itsu,
I think you comes into a situation where the super caps acts more or less as a shortcut also (extremely low impedance, as LEDs) when loading them.
My advise is to introduce some type of buck- converter in between the secondary coils [the gathered (high) DC voltages] and the  super cap.
These buck- converters can be made to have a very high efficiency ( >95%).
 
Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 01:06:32 PM
Void of truth, yeah that is my point. This is 90-95% psychological. People lie to themselves and others on both sides. Some people want to believe they have something when they don't, and other people convince themselves that something can't happen when it can.
I don't expect you to believe anything I say, just like I have no reason to believe anything a nameless person I have never met says. Such comments have no benefit here and are just wasted space. Just more diversion.
The fact is that everyone believes that millions of people have free energy solar and wind and other means. Solar would have been considered impossible over 100 years ago. Same kind of ridicule would have been hurled at people. I said what I said because it is a fact that many people use the technology in various ways. You assume that people would go online and tell everyone what they have, but that is false. In fact a good number of people have shared things online and you guys don't pay attention to that.

So many liars and delusionals in this world. Very sad.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 01:51:43 PM
G,
I have always encouraged and allowed people to bring in any equipment to my meetings. And people have done that all the time. Unfortunately that means that sometimes people damage things.
Why say "Honestly Rick"? Why say that? You assume I wouldn't? Like I said, you have always assumed what you want here G. You have no reason to assume one way over the other. And yet you do.
If people wanted to make loops back to the supply they could do that. That is something we did at the beginning of this. It is very basic level. It is easier to just do sympathetic resonance so that the input draws no power. Why go to all that trouble when you can still power loads with no input?

The people at my meetings have seen many things much more impressive than that sort of thing. You think you know what goes on there, but you don't. All you can do is assume wrong.

Now you try and control people and tell them to demand something. The way I run my meetings is starting off by asking each person to share who they are and what they are looking for so I can shape the meeting in such a way. There is never such a negative attitude as you display here G. People do not demand anything, because they go away with more than what they expected. They don't go away with a useless toy of running a circuit that merely powers itself. We are doing with learning how to multiplying the energy out as much as desired. Sure I go over those toys as curiosities, but that is old news.

You guys can forever keep yourself stunted and acting like things are so hard to even get to the starting level. You can fool many people reading this forum. But the war is mostly over and you have lost.

G, while it may be true that it is difficult to estimate exactly how much it takes to run an LED, nevertheless my point was sufficiently made. Once you do the metered readings with these bulbs you can have a working knowledge of them where you do not have to always measure them at every second as you want to demand. For example, you can get a feel for things by feeling the heat produced by the bigger LED modules with heatsinks after a few seconds. You can do controlled heat measurements as well. Anyway, people have enough of a working knowledge to realize that you can't even power up these LEDs at all if you divide the input energy between them all as I mentioned. And you also forget the fact that they could see, and see for themselves, that adding more and more coils did not raise the input as you assume. I could add as many coils as I had and it only dropped. You deliberately fail to address that. So if Itsu was doing this right (and I haven't watched the latest videos to see) then you would see that he could add more and more coils in the same way. So if he got 1/4 of the input in each coil and then had 5 coils then there you have it.

We see again your absolute trust in someone you have never even met. You are a foolish person G. You show that you trust him 100% right now already to be able to replicate what I am doing when he told us that he never has read what I have even written or shown. So all of you are deliberately trying to make this fail and promoting something other than science here. You show your prejudice. You really think you can know someone to have such foolish trust in someone online. I really doubt that you speak truth here G. I can see through your games here. Itsu is just a tool for you. Why would people put such faith in Itsu if after all these years he has never had any success? I really can't understand why you guys would waste such time chasing after something for so many years that never worked out. At least Mario addressed that point. The time and money spent doing that does not add up. It is irrational to do that when you could just buy some solar panels and be done with it. And that is the real world G. That is what real people do if they can't figure something out. But you guys are either on here for other reasons, which seems obvious with some, or you just love to waste time in idle chat trusting someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

G, you acknowledge nothing. You have ignored my fundamental questions. You refuse to do that. You checked out when I called your bluff. Then you give it some time for people to forget my questions. Again, you have no basis for believing in OU and all that you do is apply arbitrary assumptions to disprove anything that would be favorable to OU. Show us why you think OU is possible. But you won't do that. Therefore what you say here is useless and deceives them. If you admitted the grounds for OU then you would experience it easy enough. Instead you foster the ambiguous chase after the unknown and unprovable chat about a mystery circuit that maybe will do something extra special.

" If Itsu had been to my meetings and then replicated the same, then what would you say to that?"

Honestly Rick, would you let anyone measure anything relevant to your resonant kit setup on such a meeting?  Would you let Itsu attempt looping back the outputs to replace the power supply? It could be done within 1 hour  work by using full wave diode bridges across the LC tanks of the 10 or 11 big receiver units (as per your thoughtful  calculations the many small receiver units would not be needed) and collect the DC outputs in a bigger puffer capacitor. 

This latter then would feed the gate driver IC directly, provided the DC level holds up in the puffer capacitor at least for some seconds (and hopefully for much longer),  that would already indicate the real strength of the received 8W power you claim. This way the participants on that particular meeting, say 8-10 people (or even 18), could see the performance in the real world. 
(The function generator could still be run from its own supply because the input of the gate driver needs only a few mW drive level, negligible to the claimed 8 W output. And a discrete square wave generator can be built for the job.)

I hope those participants you mentioned "as a good number of them reading this thread" have been indeed reading this post too and next time they will 'demand' the loop back attempt...   8)

My kind message for them: Folks, electric power going into LED bulbs cannot be evaluated numerically by the naked eye, LED bulbs are strongly nonlinear devices. Please see this post here and think the spectacular LED brightnesses over:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534508/#msg534508
   
And no offense but I would believe Itsu 100% what he would have experienced if he had been either a witness there, or if after seeing it he would replicate it and show it in his video: I would certainly believe him. Many members (who care to follow his activity) have known him for years here and on other forums.   

And why Itsu would report back a false result after his succesful replication ??  I would trust him 100% and so would several other members here too.  For he would have learned from you a wonderful circuit setup...  and the other participants present in the real world too. 

And I would really be happy that the 8 W (or even only say 4 W) is indeed present at the outputs of the satellite LC circuits while less than 1 W is consumed from the 8 W (or 4 W) output to maintain operation. Rick I would acknowledge I was wrong. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 02:06:59 PM
Nick,
You said anyone can be wrong, but then you say you would trust Itsu 100%. So you deny that he could be wrong. So your long-winded pint here just disproves itself. It is self-contradiction. You merely give lip service to a truth about doing real science and then toss it out the window as soon as you make it, or rather before you make it in this case.
You say, "I would trust itsu's findings, 100%" because I believe he couldn't be wrong. Yet, apart from Itsu, "Anyone can be wrong" because "he tells and shows it how it is."  :o ::) This is laughable. Who are you trying to kid here man? Do you understand what special pleading means? You have just made Itsu infallible.
Why do you assume that you understand all the environment and all the parts he is using when you watch a video?
There is no video proof that is possible. You are encouraging both credulity and incredulity here.
Who makes you the standard of who is to believed and not? How can you say most videos are faked? On what grounds? Have you personally seen any of these in the real world. I have spent 15 years full time in this work, which is not doubted. I have met thousands of people and have a real-world estimation of such things. But you clowns make these sweeping statements as a mere game. You toss around assumptions like they are no big deal. Yeah, you don't want to be accountable for what you believe or disbelieve as if it doesn't matter. You want to justify creating your own illogical and unreal reality. Then you want to mock and condemn me for showing your on self-contradictions. You can't have a double standard Nick. Again, as you said "put up or shut up" Nick. Put up consistency or don't waste space.

    Guys:
   I'll second that... I would also trust itsu's findings, 100%. Regardless of the test results, being good or bad. Anyone can be wrong, but he tells and shows it how it is. Whether it's positive results, or not so positive results.  But, the proof is in the pudding, and lighting just a 10w bulb, as well as a feed back path, would help to turn the tide, for me.
   I would trust what certain people show in their videos. Not all devices are faked, just mostly... and that is why we are all so skeptical about what some people say, and what they show. Any OU type of claims need to be verified, that is what this thread is here for. Rick told me to put up or shut up, when I bring up the subject of proof. I guess he forgot where he's at.
   We are here to learn... All of us. Without long drawn out sermons, telling us how and what to believe. Thanks, but I got that one down, already. Waiting for the real self runner...before diving in, to unknown waters.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 09, 2019, 02:41:58 PM

G, while it may be true that it is difficult to estimate exactly how much it takes to run an LED, nevertheless my point was sufficiently made.
Not in my opinion Rick. Your battery powering the black box and LED lamps dropped around 1V during the video. I appreciate that you were not trying to convince anyone that they were watching an OU demonstration but what exactly were you trying to point out to your viewers??
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 02:44:37 PM
This is an important question. Superficial surveys that look at a few people for a few minutes allow for that to be entertained. If we merely take a mythbuster level of investigation, which is purely for entertainment purposes, we will just engage in confirmation bias. But if you spend 15 years actually reading these people enough to replicate what they have done then you can see the truth. People present these things in a way that is overly simplistic. As if it comes down to all these people being complete liars or completely telling the truth. Even liars have to tell the truth most of the time. Even people mistaken have to be correct in most things they do. Mistakes and lies are not detected because they are always surrounded with a lot of truth.
In regards to these people, they would have to be doing some trick and then live under that falsehood for all those years. But these guys didn't make verification of their claims impossible. Newman's motor is very easy to make. I have demonstrated the window motor for almost 15 years, where the batteries could be rotated around. Newman had some differences, but the idea is easy to work with and verify. It is old news now. His system was not as convenient as he insisted upon miles of wire.
As for Meyers, it is also easy to verify. You can see replications on youtube. It's not for everyone to play with hydrogen, but it is easy to see 3 times the gas production than regular electrolysis and without the mess. Meyers and the lord in the UK paid the price for pushing the tech as others have. Some of these guys had wacky personalities, but then so do many people here on this forum.  :o Tesla was credible but also was really off on things like eugenics. You guys assume that he didn't reveal free energy processes because you have never built his patents. Once you actually do that you will have what you are looking for.
This brings me to the patents, if any of you would spend time in patent research you would get beyond these kinds of questions. You would find many more claims of OU and which are easy to replicate. I took everyone back to Benítez 100 years ago. It is very easy to do what he did in what I call Benitez Switch 7. People never want to talk about that because it is too easy to replicate. So the trolls avoid that claim and verification of it. I have done the same thing with the motors for years.
I notice you didn't mention Bedini, who has been the biggest name in Free Energy research (who shouldn't have been). He has been now proven to be a liar. But that doesn't mean everything he claimed was a lie. Not everything he claimed to be true was a lie. The lies I have discovered were mostly in matters of claiming that he was an inventor. But his lies do give grounds to question everything he did say, and also call into question other similar claims.

Your last point is also very important. There are many systems that are in their very nature, or at a power level, that violate national security interests. So they will be scrubbed from the net as fast as you attempt to type them in. Many systems would compete with weapons systems as well.
Again, if you spend any time with patent history you will find thousands of related patents that cross this line or do not, that use these processes. So it is not a matter of if people are lying or telling the truth, but in simply understanding what these people have said, and noticing the thousands of others that have used each one of these processes over the last 100 years. The OU in such cases is not always for the end of electricity but for other types of outputs. You guys do not show any interest in considering this point. You do not wish to understand the principles of OU but merely want some little circuit that does a trick. Well I already give such little circuits. Anyway, if you take the time to actually read these guys you will be able to break down each system and recognize what is to be done and how it is to be done. Then you can see each process done thousands of times other patents and with existing technology right in your own home.

You see all such questions give the appearance that these claims were so entirely different than processes in our own existing technology. Like I said before, just study classical music instruments and you will see the same processes and gains.

I don't know, it is something I have wondered for a long time. Are they all liars Tesla, Morray, Newman, Meyers, Searl, Wagner, Hans Coeler and the list goes on and some as Searl and Meyers have done jail time but does that mean they were all liars or is there a true conspiracy to keep it all under wraps or is it human greed I don't know for sure yet after 15 years of looking into this stuff. This is part of why I don't even experiment with some things such as energy from the sky or ground because what if you did figure it out and powered your house from the ground do you really think you wouldn't just be thrown in jail for stealing power.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 03:01:53 PM
Itsu,
Short is fine, but is no virtue. You are claiming to be a replicator but you are not replicating anything here. You are doing your own thing. You are not replicating an OU claim because you are not making an OU claim. This was brought up the other day. What is the meaning of your work here? You have said you do not read what I write nor have you attempted to replicate what I have done. You guys pretend to do that but then admit to not doing that. This is all a big game. Now it is fine to experiment and try things out, but that is not the purpose of this thread is it?
You find it amazing that anyone would doubt you. Why? Are you infallible? Can any of us verify in the real world anything that you are doing? Why should we believe anything you do? You are not making an OU claim. You are making many claims, and because they are not OU claims we are supposed to believe them??? Now that is truly amazing. I saw this right from the beginning and that is why I said to A.King that you are wasting your time with Itsu. He has been at this for years and has not got anywhere because he doesn't know what he is doing. This is all but going around and around in circles. Same old assumptions. And now these guys, along with you, have made you the infallible replicator of no one's claims but your own. This is reckless.
But do not misunderstand me. It is perfectly fine to do what you have been doing in trying things out and posting videos. My objection is with your assumptions about what is implied by such videos. You expect others to believe that you know what you are doing and that they can understand your real-world environment. The only value of your input is merely for others to be able to do something to show themselves. You wish to bypass the real world and expect people to conclude prematurely. So this whole thing is a big game.
You say that anyone can make a mistake, but then take that back in saying videos can not allow for mistakes. But how so? I have watched thousands of videos that don't show the real mistakes that the videos don't show. And why would anyone be expected to trust someone in our day?
Yes it is fine to discuss things that appear to be wrong or mistaken. All agreed there. But to assume that a video proves anything is wrong. It can only give ideas to personally try. Why do you all just want to bypass reality?

Are you all so addicted to science fiction movies that you assume what is on the screen is reality????

Thanks Guys, for the trusts,  but i find it amazing that anyone would doubt any results a replicator would present.

Of course anyone can make a mistake, but thats where the video's are for so anyone can see what is being done.
If you think something is wrong it can be discussed and corrected.

Anyway i always try to keep my posts short and clear so won't comment on it any further.
Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 09, 2019, 03:15:00 PM
RF,

For the record, Itsu is one of the best replicators on this forum and although I have not met him face-to-face, I can vouch for his honesty, knowledge, and integrity based on the work we have done together on my various projects alone.  He will go the the nth degree in his efforts to prove or disprove circuit claims at his own time and expense.  I'm sure you can see the amount of effort and work he has invested in his attempts to prove your claims.  IMO, he deserves your respect!

Regards,
Pm

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 03:20:01 PM
When you think about, people do not want the attention drawn to them in having a free energy device. Initially you are excited about it and maybe want to tell others about it. But then you will invite negative attention. In many places the problem is securing it. Many people want to steel it. Some just because they want to see such a thing. Others because they want free power. Not everyone wants the hassle of people pestering them about it. When I had my body wrap on my electric Porsche there was not one time that I parked it without someone walking over to me to ask about it. People even searched for me in restaurants to find the owner of that car to talk to me about it. That was fine as it was my work. But that is not fine for others.
As I said before, as G echoed, people just put a few panels on their roof and no one cares after that. Yes it is sad that it takes doing that for people to leave you alone. But people are suspicious and like to assume the worst. What is that guy really doing there if no wires are going to his house? It would be like this. When the power would go out permanently in some place and everything is chaos, then what do you think would happen to the people who everyone knew they had a free energy device?
The truth is that the world doesn't like fast changes. The establishment does not want to be exposed suddenly as liars. They will only allow such things slowly over time so they still retain the control. Soon power usage will all be controlled through the internet of things so having free energy will not be an issue anyway. Most of the first world will be in smart cities and dependent upon and locked into that system and the new currency will be total information control rather than based upon oil.

I'm still in the process of organizing everything on a new website. I had to attend to another matter so the next video and all this has been on hold. But I will try and organize everything that is important on two letter size pages. You will all be very happy for that  :D

Hi gyulasun

Thanks for the reply, it does seem a sad state of affairs if hiding it would be the answer to such a wonderful thing for humanity as Tesla said todays is theirs and the future for which he worked would be his but I don't know if it will be in my lifetime. Anyway I think I am off topic and will say no more on the philosophy and leave the thread to those doing this great work. I tell you I haven't been to this site so much as when this thread started I love it and I do plan to get expirementing on this but I will need to start further back in Rick's teachings to get up to speed.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 09, 2019, 03:44:57 PM
Itsu,
Short is fine, but is no virtue. You are claiming to be a replicator but you are not replicating anything here. You are doing your own thing. You are not replicating an OU claim because you are not making an OU claim. This was brought up the other day. What is the meaning of your work here? You have said you do not read what I write nor have you attempted to replicate what I have done. You guys pretend to do that but then admit to not doing that. This is all a big game. Now it is fine to experiment and try things out, but that is not the purpose of this thread is it?
You find it amazing that anyone would doubt you. Why? Are you infallible? Can any of us verify in the real world anything that you are doing? Why should we believe anything you do? You are not making an OU claim. You are making many claims, and because they are not OU claims we are supposed to believe them??? Now that is truly amazing. I saw this right from the beginning and that is why I said to A.King that you are wasting your time with Itsu. He has been at this for years and has not got anywhere because he doesn't know what he is doing. This is all but going around and around in circles. Same old assumptions. And now these guys, along with you, have made you the infallible replicator of no one's claims but your own. This is reckless.
But do not misunderstand me. It is perfectly fine to do what you have been doing in trying things out and posting videos. My objection is with your assumptions about what is implied by such videos. You expect others to believe that you know what you are doing and that they can understand your real-world environment. The only value of your input is merely for others to be able to do something to show themselves. You wish to bypass the real world and expect people to conclude prematurely. So this whole thing is a big game.
You say that anyone can make a mistake, but then take that back in saying videos can not allow for mistakes. But how so? I have watched thousands of videos that don't show the real mistakes that the videos don't show. And why would anyone be expected to trust someone in our day?
Yes it is fine to discuss things that appear to be wrong or mistaken. All agreed there. But to assume that a video proves anything is wrong. It can only give ideas to personally try. Why do you all just want to bypass reality?

Are you all so addicted to science fiction movies that you assume what is on the screen is reality? ???


Rick,

so many words again.

What the hell do you try to say with: "You are not replicating an OU claim because you are not making an OU claim"

Its these kind of sentences which makes my head spin and stop reading.

Anyway, i am here because a.king21 was very enthusiastic about your work and asked me (among others no doubt)
to start looking into this.

We PMed for a while, then jumped over to this thread.

I am trying to replicate what he presented to me, and as i am no Electronics Expert i usually then present my
findings on a forum like this via posts and video's to have other more knowledgeable people have a look at it
and correct and/or advice me when needed.

The video's are hopefully crisp and clear and for anyone open to ask questions to follow up.
I never "claim" things, i just show what is happening and try to find out why, no more, no less.

Thats the way i work for years and i like it and i don't care if you understand or approve.

Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 03:58:06 PM
P,
I understand what you are trying to say here. But you guys don't wish to address something far more important. I am not saying there is anything wrong with exchanging information back and forth, but so long as people are assuming that something has been proven over the internet then you are all lost at that point. Notice again your point. You vouch for his honesty. Well who vouches for yours? Having 10,000 people say that makes no difference. It still doesn't prove anything over the internet. Why is that so difficult to see??? You guys have been so glued to these forums for so long that you cannot even see what is so obvious here. The more you engage in assumptions the harder it is to see them as that. So you then set up Itsu as an authority. But why? Because you have seen him help you out on a few things. That gives him credibility to you personally. But surely you don't expect others just to assume that? And surely you don't assume he cannot make a mistake? The truth is that you merely benefit from him to the point that you can replicate what he has done. And that is my whole point. It only goes that far. You guys want to make it more than that. You are all looking for a way to make a forum prove something that everyone should believe. But that can never happen. We have done that sort of thing long ago. It is getting old now. It is merely a fantasy. It cannot happen. Because you will always have the realist come in and say as I do: "says who?" Even Hollywood leaves you with the same problem for spiderman who is going to have to try and convinced his fantasy world how a video was faked. You can't rely on videos to prove anything. You can't rely on testimony through this medium. You should only encourage people to prove things out to themselves. But you guys are setting the stage for more fake OU claims to be believed, and real OU claims to be disbelieved. Both are counterproductive. Some of you guys are disinfo people doing this on purposes. Others are just fooled by this game and not thinking about this. But at least I have forced them to partially admit that anyone could be wrong. Now if they will only really admit that to be the case and not take it back in the next sentence.

P, he is not actually replicating anything I am doing because he said he has not even read what I wrote. So he is doing his own thing based upon no OU claim. He is not seeking "Confirmation of OU devices and claims" in this activity. That is in regards to a particular setup. But in regards to a general claim he may be attempting to do something. But again, he would have to work from the right context. And he shows no interest to understand the right context. The videos show that this is entirely new to him. So you guys are expected far too much from him. Again, if he has been at this for years without success, then doesn't that mean anything to you? I guess I don't understand how someone can spend all that time for years and never have anything to is more than mainstream processes. Why not just do something very simple as I have been saying? Why doesn't G and others show why they believe OU is possible? Surely there is some justifiable reason you guys are all here??? Or do you all just like to chat? Or are you all just here to disprove OU? What is the reason you all think OU is possible? Or how can you justify your time spent here doing this? If the laws are fixed as so many things said here imply, then why even bother? But if you can just do a simple thing to see some gain then you can build upon that. Yet if something is suggested it is ignored or disbelieved with fallacy. And no one wishes to offer up any rational reason why we have any grounds for believing in OU. Isn't that amazing on a forum such as OU? Has it therefore just become a place for hackers to disprove OU?

So why does Itsu do what he has done for so many years when he never has had success in experiencing OU? What is the basis for continuing? I would really like to know what grounds he has for expecting to find something. If there are no reasons, that is fine, but we ought to know that before we make him Pope in the infallible sense. Did any of you ever think to ask this?
And the same with G. Don't you think that it would be most instructive if we learned the reason for his one sentence of expecting to find some circuit give additional gains? These revelations would be far more important than anything he has yet written. But he refuses to say a word about it. If he says there are no actual reasons then he will look foolish, especially to the mainstream skeptics. If he actually has some grounds for that sentence then withholding that information is needlessly unproductive considering all the hostilities about this. Why not just come out of the closet G? Tell us one way or the other. Maybe you don't because you want others to do the work for you? I don't know.

But all of you need to ask yourself this question. What is my reason for being here and basis for considering such claims? If you have any foundation for rational belief in OU then why have you not stated it? Why not build upon that foundation? Why keep silent. If you do not have any, then state that. Come clean. Tell us that you have no reason at this point to believe it. That would be helpful. But no, we just all jump right in ignoring all foundations and get crazed about some schematic or circuit that is supposed make someone a sensation or a liar based upon popular opinion!
RF,

For the record, Itsu is one of the best replicators on this forum and although I have not met him face-to-face, I can vouch for his honesty, knowledge, and integrity based on the work we have done together on my various projects alone.  He will go the the nth degree in his efforts to prove or disprove circuit claims at his own time and expense.  I'm sure you can see the amount of effort and work he has invested in his attempts to prove your claims.  IMO, he deserves your respect!

Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 09, 2019, 04:27:39 PM
What is my reason for being here and basis for considering such claims?

"Occam's razor!"

http://www.r-charge.net/kits.html

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 09, 2019, 04:40:07 PM
Mr.Friedrich, Science and combined with Fiction is ever fine !  ;)
     " Calculations for a Nominal Electricity Generator "https://patents.google.com/patent/US8847720B2/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8847720B2/en)
708 cm3 a 8 Gr. / cm3 ~ 6 Kg

Nominal Voltage amplified by frequency to induced Voltage

Nice claimed power densities  ! Up  to thousands of KWs  !
                          Device vibrations  ? durability,lifetime ?

Question : when and how becomes Science Fiction Science Reality  !?

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 04:49:07 PM
Itsu,
I understand the context of what you did. A.King initially believed that you could replicate something. So you were merely trying to replicate what he was saying to you. That was all muddled because what was being replicated changed and wasn't clear. That is my point. It wasn't my kit that was being replicated but something else. It was A.King's claim, not my claim. It was a claim about my work, and also claims about what he did. But his claims were vague and not satisfactory to any of you. I discouraged him from doing that. But once it was in full swing I thought I would at least try and reset this whole thing while driving the points home with a sensational picture and video that proved my points. So here are some other points relating to you:

1. You have never tried to replicate my specific OU claims (and that is fine by me).
2. You have attempted to do something similar to A.King's claims (but not actual replications).
3. You have never attempted to understand any of my OU claims (again which is fine).
4. You agree with many or all of your friends that every video you post contains visuals that they can make absolute claims about.

This brings me to my somewhat ambiguous sentence you quote outside of the context. Yes that is ambiguous but is not typical in what I have shared. My point is that when I posted the picture and later video then the shift was away from A.King's initial claims to my claims. This was stated by several people and implied in just about everyone's postings. Even your postings took on a new direction soon after that as others are guiding you to do certain things resembling what I claimed and showed. But my point is that you stated with great irritation (as repeated here) that you never bothered to read anything I wrote merely because it was long. So my point is that you personally are not actually replicating any OU claim here. You are not really replicating any OU claim of A.King in these recently videos, nor can you replicate any of my OU claims when you don't even know what they are. You are merely doing your own thing. And that is fine to do. But these guys are acting like you are trying to replicate what I am doing. You are not making an OU claim yourself, and since you are doing your own thing, the question was asked by another in a way that lead me to ask the other day, what is the purpose here of your experiments? It is fine to share information on the internet, but this thread is about replicating OU claims. And since you are not making any OU claims, and not replicating any OU claims, I asked what is the meaning of your work here specifically?

What you say here would be fine if it was true:
"I never "claim" things, i just show what is happening and try to find out why, no more, no less."
That would be great. But you did make many claims with each video as you told us the details (which were claims about what you said happen in the context of things). Every detail was a claim that such and such actually happened. Each one of those claims was shared as if in a tightly controlled environment that ever reader was supposed to be fully aware of. And the massive claim was given in your previous email I responded to where you wrote that the videos speak for themselves in a way that we should be able to conclude things from them. That is the biggest claim of all. Why do you make such a claim. You say you make no claims, but you do in all these matters. But the biggest is that people should believe videos as you write: "thats where the video's are for so anyone can see what is being done." This is a big claim you don't realize. A video shows superficially what is being done. But there is no way to actually know what really is being done. I understand what you were trying to say, that we post a video and people can help each other out and correct each other, etc. But that is not what is happening with your videos. People are making conclusions based upon your videos which are claims. They are assuming they know exactly what is happening in them. And this sort of thing has been happening for years creating so much confusion on forums.

If you go back to my second posting on this thread I believe, I said that someone jesting that my picture showing the powering of many coils was as good as the wires under the table. Consider that assumption. The picture and video was disbelieved because it went against someone's assumptions and experience. But if you posted a picture or video it is believed automatically. Not because any of these people really know you at all or have every been there with you to verify anything. It is because what you show is what they want to see. So they choose to believe your conclusions and reject others that they do not want to believe. None of them should be believed anyway, and I am just pointing that out.

So if you really were just doing this without any claims that would be fine. But you are making claims all the time. Claims given without the complete picture which is impossible to convey over the internet. You can you really prove your entire environmental conditions? Can you really prove every relationship? All you can do is give ideas for people to try. That's it. Anything more assumed is encouraging credulity.

Rick wrote:
"Itsu,
Short is fine, but is no virtue. You are claiming to be a replicator but you are not replicating anything here. You are doing your own thing. You are not replicating an OU claim because you are not making an OU claim. This was brought up the other day. What is the meaning of your work here? You have said you do not read what I write nor have you attempted to replicate what I have done"

Rick,
so many words again.
What the hell do you try to say with: "You are not replicating an OU claim because you are not making an OU claim"
Its these kind of sentences which makes my head spin and stop reading.
Anyway, i am here because a.king21 was very enthusiastic about your work and asked me (among others no doubt) to start looking into this. We PMed for a while, then jumped over to this thread.

I am trying to replicate what he presented to me, and as i am no Electronics Expert i usually then present my findings on a forum like this via posts and video's to have other more knowledgeable people have a look at it and correct and/or advice me when needed.

The video's are hopefully crisp and clear and for anyone open to ask questions to follow up.
I never "claim" things, i just show what is happening and try to find out why, no more, no less.

Thats the way i work for years and i like it and i don't care if you understand or approve.

Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 09, 2019, 05:41:38 PM
   Well Rick, I looks like anyone trying to replicate any of your claims is going to get slammed by your criticisms.  Not good.
   Keep your sermons to yourself. Provide an accurate schematic, with all the proper information. Then we can do something about it. Otherwise, you are going to lose everyone here.    Are you afraid to actually make a video for us, showing exactly what needs to be done, with scope shots and readings??? As that is what it looks like, at least to me. Otherwise any small solar panel can do more that what you are showing. Which is not a self runner, and possibly not OU, either. So, maybe it's time YOU put up, or shut up.
   PS. itsu's observations on what he sees happening are not CLAIMS. They are OBSERVATIONS. You are the only one making claims, and not showing PROOF, by measurements and readings. Only sermons and excuses for not doing so.
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 09, 2019, 05:44:43 PM
It circulates a rumor at this thread that Rick's experiment produces more output power then needed for input.
Or have I totally misunderstood this?
Someone tell me.
Do you know anything about that Rick?
If so, how does the extra energy occurs?

Last time I asked a similar question about what and how the extra energy occurs  [the Figuera generator that time] to member Marthonman he told that he had  the ability  to search for me and shoot me.    He is banned  now.

It shouldn't take more space / rows than the extra  long posts we often can see here  to describe what causes this extra incoming effect/ power supply and how to place and dimension coils and use the Coil repeating/ amplifying? effect if any, ETC, ETC.

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 06:02:26 PM
That is actually a lie. Here is the most obvious example from Benitez:
"That is to say the original conditions being thus reestablished at every turn of the cylinder 38, the same phenomena will be produced indefinitely, as many times as the revolutions of the said cylinder are repeated, without having recourse to any exterior aid." I have shown others starting with Cook's 1870's patent. It is true that in more recent times it is hard to make such claims. But they are there if you understand and are familiar with the art. There are many OU kind of claims that are not specifically about electrical energy generation like Benitez here. They can be found in optics, communications, and other forms of energy generation. Nevertheless they are exactly like Benitez statement. So you don't know what you are talking about again.

Of course there are a lot of things that indicate OU. MANY THINGS. And that has been my point that people don't want to talk about. Everyone is looking for a simple thing in one sentence that does everything. You guys want the output without wanting to know these processes. You want to say OU is possible and then neglect or deny the very processes that make it possible. I will be getting into that in my presentation shortly.

You act like this is all just some deceitful scam to carefully word things so that people will get a false impression. The truth is that the patent office is all about making money and preventing perpetual motion claims. Nevertheless, if people quote sufficient authorities and demonstrate their claims, then they often get patents. You just have to aware of them and understand the words. I spend a lot of time in patent research and I can see you don't.

You are right that people read into things. But I have no reason to believe that you know what you are reading. You have done the same thing my friend, that you accuse others.

As for Tesla, you also don't know what he was doing. Tesla wasn't interested in giving free energy to the individual. He was part of the establishment and was working at the industrial level. Even though that was the norm, he still gave us the 1901 Radiant patent. So even that proves you wrong. Do you see a mains hook up there?

I can't speak for Searl. And Newman was crazy indeed. But he did what so many other inventors did, he tried to get as much money as he could in the big deal. He should have just did what I did. Get out the systems in an affordable way to 10s of thousands of people all around the world. But the goal was to make money with such people, and there was no wisdom in what they did if they really were trying to help people.

You address the impractical nature of some of these systems. And that is an important point. Just because they can do something that gives higher gain, doesn't mean that it is justified when it is too big, expensive, or unsafe. Neman and Bedini rejected my coil arrangement on my window motor because they were set in their ways. But it didn't give any lesser results and was far more practical. They didn't understand how to go beyond prototype level engineering.

It is true that people see what they want to see, just as you are doing here. But you fail to understand why many of those patents are on those websites because you fail to consider the specific processes in those patents that are essential to OU production. A patent doesn't have to have an overt OU claim to make it useful for us here. You have made big mistake in your assumptions and claims here.

As for the next paragraph it is completely nonsense. Perhaps you are just attempting to get the casual reader to come to a prejudgment with such comments. And that will work for the superficial reader. You evidence this yourself in reference to mentioning me with "Self sustaining" words. I used that very specifically in quoting from Benitez patent. Tell me then, what does the quote and many others within those long patents really mean then? You would have us believe that any amount of words would never be enough to claim OU. Nice diversion attempt here! If we apply the same rules to your own words then they become meaningless. And we are justified in making them say just the opposite. But we are not in elementary school are we???

No one is claiming perpetual motion with a Benitez setup, as parts can and do wear out. Parts are a big consideration for me. But they are minimal cost. OU does not mean infinite perpetual motion. So your post here is just a whole lot of hype. Endlessoceans of nonsense once again. There are only a few true points you mention here. I suggest you open a dictionary before you use words next time.

Stories of cold energy are true. Your denials don't change that and they don't help anyone here because you have offered no reason to think otherwise. More wasted space. Why don't you give us a demonstration to explain what is really happening rather than just saying so.

Actually, you assume wrong. My batteries are getting better over time. Thousands of customers all around the world report that also.

No, I don't attempt to prove anything over the internet. You just assume that. I have always warned people against that. I make claims which is fine to do. We all make claims. But if you actually watch any of my videos I am doing them for my customers or showing people how to do things themselves. I don't try and prove a point, but rather make a point so that people can prove it to themselves. Why is that so hard for you guys to understand the difference?

As for your assumptions that I have not shown what you mentioned about 3 batteries, I have done that in video, but more importantly I have demonstrated that at many of my meetings for two full days straight (which were about 12 hours each). Some times people even stayed in the room all night as we worked without sleep (which usually happens). Anyway, batteries are old news. People have already proven that out years ago. But I can't help you if you were not there in the real world. Or if you want a video of such when I have already done that.

All you can do here is make denials. What is the point? Does a denial contribute anything? The fact that I showed in Bedini's own words that he lied gives me credibility. It was expected of me. It was important that people learned this so that they would be less likely to waste their time, money and faith on several of his destructive processes.

No, that guys didn't say that about Don. They said that it powered the bulbs when it shouldn't have.

You may not be an agent but you are doing exactly what one would do here. You fill this forum with useless diversions which then just misleads people. You provide no support for anything you say here, so it is worse than useless. I respond to every point here.

Did I hang a carrot stick out to anyone when I showed the world how to convert billions of fans to produce free energy 14 years ago? When I made the monopole rider lawnmower that drove through a parade in 2007 was that a carrot stick? These were easy things to do with the basic circuit. When I did the same with window motor on the same lawnmower and drove around 400 people over three days, was that what you say? The next year, when I dropped that motor into a 26' boat and gave rides was that more of that? When people demanded kits and I provided them did they complain that it was just carrots? When I made chargers that recovered useless batteries all around the world, and thus solved the biggest problem in conventional alternative energy, was that useless? You don't know what you are talking about. I have done what I could with no money and very little help from anyone. I'm nobody special so what goes in is what comes out. Obviously things could have been better if I was someone else. But I am satisfied with my work over the years. And because of this work, this is why you attack me so intensely. You have a dark agenda here.

As for your last paragraph, I have the right to share what I want to. No one said you had to listen to. If you don't want it then move along. Did I force you? I have shared my testimony to give the reason for why I am doing what I am. I have also made a simple spiritual analogy about a closed circuit being like a selfish person and an open circuit being like a loving given person. That is hardly offensive or selfish. On the other hand, what you have done is lied about many things here and deliberately twisted everything. Naturally you are offended with the spiritual content as well. But my point is that unless we become honest then we can't even do basic science. So the biggest problem is overcoming prejudice, which you represent or illustrate here more than anyone I have seen yet. Unless people can overcome their assumptions then they will forever be mistaken and never arrive at anything important.

Anyway, grow up and do something constructive for once.

Just depends what you think they were lying about.  You see.....and listen carefully here.....if you read their patents VERY carefully (and they were very well worded!!) there is NOTHING in them that indicates OU.  NOTHING

But people love to read into things especially when the mind feverishly wishes for a dream.  Tesla talked about millions of horsepower and power generated but after all those years he was still hooked to the grid.  For ALL his experiments he was hooked to mains town supply. 

As far as the other inventors go, many were working with exotic materials such a radium or other isotopes.  Searl is an old buffoon who tried all sorts of magnetic motors and told fanciful stories of his one working motor which lost gravity and shot intp the atmosphere never to be seen again  LOOOOL   ::) ::) ::) ::).   He should go to prison for that nonsense.  Newman still worked with big batteries and took thousand's of dollars in investors money  Also jail worthy.  Moray was a true scientist but also worked with exotic materials and never disclosed the contents of his tube.  Many other inventors are often associated with OU sites but the fact is their patents did not state OU.  People see what they want to see


SOME of those patents had Terms such as "self sustaining" that Rick Friedrich grabs onto...….but that does not mean OU.  Self sustaining …….for how long???  Huh.  A flashlight is self sustaining.  A rechargeable power tool that does not need to be plugged into the wall is self sustaining but for how long?  By the true definition of the term....a vehicle is self sustaining because you can fill the tank and drive 400 mile...…    None of those patents said or even alluded to INFINITE self sustaining.   Yes...energy is never destroyed but it is converted into heat and light and all sort and that conversion costs you something.   


These stories about coils cooling to freezing and cold lightbulbs are nonsense.  Even large halogen loads which you run off a tesla hairpin that you can dunk into water without getting electrocuted are scalding hot on the glass....why?? because there is resistance at the filament in order to generate heat and light.


Tesla was a brilliant man and his patents on one wire transmission were cutting edge.   Rick....

You have pretty big capacity batteries with lEDS that hooked a certain way can run for days.    Your batteries are a still dropping down after all that cycling.  I find it amusing that on one hand you say that NOTHING can be proven on the internet and yet that's the very thing you attempt to do.   BTW saying that nothing can be proven on the internet is rubbish.  You sit there and conduct some very good demonstrations (yes that's a compliment) and draw some accurate conclusions and yet on the other hand when somebody asks you to take all these little black boxes and show 3 batteries being charged for the price of one or a output looped back to the source you come up with the laughable "Im sorry but nothing can be proven on the internet and btw this circuit is not perfectly tuned.   ::) ::) ::) ::).  "back in my last seminar I showed it running perpetually blah blah blah and thousands have OU!!.  You yourself said Bedini was a liar and misled people and yet you are no different. 

You know what...Don Smith said exactly the same thing over and over and yet the few guys that took a measurement to his device always showed it as slowly running down.

You may think I am angry or a paid shill (which is laughable) but I am not the one making massive claims and keeping people on the carrot stick for how many decades now??

Oh and btw....mixing what the Bible says with your kit selling is just plain mentally ill.  Are you trying to run a church or sell a charger?  Jesus himself threw out the money changers from the temple because the things of the flesh have nothing to do with the things of the spirit.  So if you want to start a church then go do that but please read the Bible first before prostituting it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 06:06:12 PM
Hardly, I have shared everything you need to know for you to do these things yourself. If I was trying to sell you guys something I would have at least put my website up once or every post. Just because I sell products, does that disqualify me from talking to people who are evaluating one of my kits which I do not make any money from? This is no Occam's razor.

"Occam's razor!"

http://www.r-charge.net/kits.html
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 09, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
P,
I understand what you are trying to say here. But you guys don't wish to address something far more important. I am not saying there is anything wrong with exchanging information back and forth, but so long as people are assuming that something has been proven over the internet then you are all lost at that point. Notice again your point. You vouch for his honesty. Well who vouches for yours? Having 10,000 people say that makes no difference. It still doesn't prove anything over the internet. Why is that so difficult to see??? You guys have been so glued to these forums for so long that you cannot even see what is so obvious here. The more you engage in assumptions the harder it is to see them as that. So you then set up Itsu as an authority. But why? Because you have seen him help you out on a few things. That gives him credibility to you personally. But surely you don't expect others just to assume that? And surely you don't assume he cannot make a mistake? The truth is that you merely benefit from him to the point that you can replicate what he has done.  And that is my whole point. It only goes that far.

You are totally incorrect here and your point is invalid!  Itsu replicated my work regarding at least several different OU technologies over the past several years that I thought were valid.  With his help over many laborious hours of bench work, it was determined I was in error.  You know nothing about Itsu and myself regarding our search for OU.

Quote
You guys want to make it more than that. You are all looking for a way to make a forum prove something that everyone should believe. But that can never happen. We have done that sort of thing long ago. It is getting old now. It is merely a fantasy. It cannot happen.  Because you will always have the realist come in and say as I do: "says who?" Even Hollywood leaves you with the same problem for spiderman who is going to have to try and convinced his fantasy world how a video was faked. You can't rely on videos to prove anything. You can't rely on testimony through this medium. You should only encourage people to prove things out to themselves. But you guys are setting the stage for more fake OU claims to be believed, and real OU claims to be disbelieved. Both are counterproductive. Some of you guys are disinfo people doing this on purposes. Others are just fooled by this game and not thinking about this. But at least I have forced them to partially admit that anyone could be wrong. Now if they will only really admit that to be the case and not take it back in the next sentence.


Your comments above are most confusing!  My purpose and many others on this forum is to find REAL OU.  When someone like you for example makes claims of easy OU, we place the burden of proof on you, the claimant.  I am not impressed with videos that show the charging of LABs with LABs.  I'm not impressed with videos showing devices with LED loads and claims of OU.  As you state above "You can't rely on videos to prove anything".  What I do rely on are concrete measurements taken with credible equipment by credible people.  This can be shown accurately in stills and video.  If this info is not included, all claims of performance are meaningless.

Quote
P, he is not actually replicating anything I am doing because he said he has not even read what I wrote. So he is doing his own thing based upon no OU claim. He is not seeking "Confirmation of OU devices and claims" in this activity. That is in regards to a particular setup. But in regards to a general claim he may be attempting to do something. But again, he would have to work from the right context. And he shows no interest to understand the right context. The videos show that this is entirely new to him. So you guys are expected far too much from him. Again, if he has been at this for years without success, then doesn't that mean anything to you? I guess I don't understand how someone can spend all that time for years and never have anything to is more than mainstream processes. Why not just do something very simple as I have been saying? Why doesn't G and others show why they believe OU is possible? Surely there is some justifiable reason you guys are all here??? Or do you all just like to chat? Or are you all just here to disprove OU? What is the reason you all think OU is possible? Or how can you justify your time spent here doing this? If the laws are fixed as so many things said here imply, then why even bother? But if you can just do a simple thing to see some gain then you can build upon that. Yet if something is suggested it is ignored or disbelieved with fallacy. And no one wishes to offer up any rational reason why we have any grounds for believing in OU. Isn't that amazing on a forum such as OU? Has it therefore just become a place for hackers to disprove OU?

Let me see if I understand you correctly.  Those of us who have been doing this for years and have failed to find OU are wasting our time and are basically harming others with our questioning to the point of being disinfo agents?  But if we were to just following your teachings regarding the rapid quenching of an arc as you have demonstrated in sundry and various ways in your videos, we would be successful correct?  Well, take away any LABs and LEDs and demonstrate that you can ultimately capture the radiant energy resulting from a rapidly quenched arc as per Tesla in a resistive or other useful real load, and you will have something.  Case in point, after all these years of your research and building efforts, are you still connected to the grid?   

Quote
So why does Itsu do what he has done for so many years when he never has had success in experiencing OU? What is the basis for continuing? I would really like to know what grounds he has for expecting to find something. If there are no reasons, that is fine, but we ought to know that before we make him Pope in the infallible sense. Did any of you ever think to ask this?
And the same with G. Don't you think that it would be most instructive if we learned the reason for his one sentence of expecting to find some circuit give additional gains? These revelations would be far more important than anything he has yet written. But he refuses to say a word about it. If he says there are no actual reasons then he will look foolish, especially to the mainstream skeptics. If he actually has some grounds for that sentence then withholding that information is needlessly unproductive considering all the hostilities about this. Why not just come out of the closet G? Tell us one way or the other. Maybe you don't because you want others to do the work for you? I don't know.

But all of you need to ask yourself this question. What is my reason for being here and basis for considering such claims? If you have any foundation for rational belief in OU then why have you not stated it? Why not build upon that foundation? Why keep silent. If you do not have any, then state that. Come clean. Tell us that you have no reason at this point to believe it. That would be helpful. But no, we just all jump right in ignoring all foundations and get crazed about some schematic or circuit that is supposed make someone a sensation or a liar based upon popular opinion!

You know Rick there is a 'remote' possibility that what you 'think' is OU is really not!  How do I know this, because I have "been there and done that" many times with far more complex circuits to analyze than what you have presented.  This has taught me to be really careful before making claims and divulging anything that would waste others time in replication or building.   

Why do those like myself continue the search for OU, because of hope.  Hope that we may find that something which has been overlooked in our observations.  That's our common goal.

Regards,
Pm 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 09, 2019, 06:12:42 PM
Sorry Rick you write a book about my epididymis.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 09, 2019, 06:17:39 PM

It shouldn't take more space / rows than the extra  long posts we often can see here  to describe what causes this extra incoming effect/ power supply and how to place and dimension coils and use the Coil repeating/ amplifying? effect if any, ETC, ETC.

Regards Arne

He can't show you anything, because he does not have it.
It is all part of show.

While you reading long posts, business is going well!
He is not aiming at members who are posting here. His audience are others who reads this and then buy products.
As long as he can maintain status quo, not giving chance to measure his circuits and disprove him, sales of product are going up.

This is teasing game for him to claim without prove, and for you to begging him to show you.
At the end you buy product!

He is salesman.

Otherwise, he will participate along with Itsu to show how to make that coils OU as he claim, but he will never do that!
You have eyes and can see this for yourself, but the hope that he have something will draw you here again and again.
And that is exactly what he wants!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 06:18:09 PM
I don't  understand your question. My point about science fiction was that people were living in a fiction world online and forgetting that science is done in the real world. The fiction is not real by definition, so never. Science fiction can copy the real world, but the story is always not real. Our culture is deceived with all the fiction so that they believe things are real because of how much the fiction repeats things. The not-real never becomes real. The not-real merely tries to portray things as if they are real (some of the things attempting to be portrayed are real).
Again, my point is that you guys are so accustomed to science fiction on these forums that you have no sense of real science at all. You believe claims made from videos of strangers you do not really know at all, except through this escapist online avenue where people often act totally different than they do in the real world. They enter into a fantasy existence and soar wherever they so desire! I have worked for years in mental health treating people with mental health problems, and this is delusional and borders on delirium in some cases. The fact that no one wants to admit it shows how serious it is.

Mr.Friedrich, Science and combined with Fiction is ever fine !  ;)
     " Calculations for a Nominal Electricity Generator "https://patents.google.com/patent/US8847720B2/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8847720B2/en)
708 cm3 a 8 Gr. / cm3 ~ 6 Kg
Nominal Voltage amplified by frequency to induced Voltage
Nice claimed power densities  ! Up  to thousands of KWs  !
                          Device vibrations  ? durability,lifetime ?
Question : when and how becomes Science Fiction Science Reality  !?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 09, 2019, 06:23:59 PM
I don't know why forum give possibility to advertise business here and promote buying of someones products!

Is this forum online shop or what?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 09, 2019, 06:45:59 PM
You can make this coil for 1USD per piece on a piece of plastic.
But you will buy it from Rick, because he has secret of OU!

Rick is promoting his videos and in each of his videos he is talking about his kits,
and pointing you to his page to buy them.

I watched most of that videos, and there is no explanation of his claims of OU in videos,
just talking about his kits and convincing audience that he has something and
everyone has to buy his kits to figure OU secret!

Just a show of a salesman!

And he is using this forum as his own online shop!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 09, 2019, 06:51:22 PM
You can make this coil for 1USD per piece on a piece of plastic.
But you will buy it from Rick, because he has secret of OU!

Blimey! That has to be a OU coil set at that price!!!!  :o
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 09, 2019, 06:57:20 PM
Blimey! That has to be a OU coil set at that price!!!!  :o

That is exactly what Richard Max Friedrich claims!

Buy it and you will have OU. You will have only 100USD less in your pocket!
He claims that he powered big industrial motors also, but I can not find video of that.
Not even one sentence about that claim on the NET, no matter how much I searched!

This forum is his online shop!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 09, 2019, 07:22:07 PM
That is exactly what Richard Max Friedrich claims!

Buy it and you will have OU. You will have only 100USD less in your pocket!
He claims that he powered big industrial motors also, but I can not find video of that.
Not even one sentence about that claim on the NET, no matter how much I searched!

This forum is his online shop!
So, not just OU but MAX OU!!!!  8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 09, 2019, 07:33:52 PM
So, not just OU but MAX OU!!!!  8)

Deleted!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on July 09, 2019, 07:44:34 PM
Contributors.

Things seem to be getting a little " out of control " here.

Whilst not keeping a close eye upon this topic/thread I cannot say that Mr Friedrich has been directly soliciting his kits.

Friendly banter is one thing, lets keep it clean!!

Cheers Grum.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on July 09, 2019, 07:48:26 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 08:11:33 PM
That is not true. The battery has a natural voltage drop when hooked up and that voltage was maintained for the entire hour. Even without the loads the battery would have dropped over the hour with a 6W continuous load of the motor. The small LEDs were 3W each and the others were 100W each. Also the charging battery started at 11.80V and was charging at over 13V the whole time. The particular voltage depended on the loads being added. The object of that setup is to keep both batteries from charging or discharging without the kind of rotation that Benitez did.
I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. I had several reason for showing that. But it was interesting the amount of hostility I got in response to that. That was one of the most significant videos ever posted to youtube.

Not in my opinion Rick. Your battery powering the black box and LED lamps dropped around 1V during the video. I appreciate that you were not trying to convince anyone that they were watching an OU demonstration but what exactly were you trying to point out to your viewers??
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 08:19:53 PM
The original kit from the science lab cost $280. The parts do not cost $1. Maybe 100 years ago.
Ironically you guys are attacking me here because of the price because you have nothing else to do, but I don't actually make any money on that kit. An associate of mine who I did the kit with has a homeschool son who makes these coils.
It never fails that people will yell at me for not giving parts, and when I do bad people attack me for offering parts. Of course you would work for free and expect everyone to just work for free.
You guys are a joke.

Blimey! That has to be a OU coil set at that price!!!!  :o
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 08:21:35 PM
No, it is rather a den of disinfo people. Instead of addressing real matters you distract with countless useless chatter.

I don't know why forum give possibility to advertise business here and promote buying of someones products!

Is this forum online shop or what?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 08:26:54 PM
You are a liar. I rarely put links to my products in my videos and only usually do when people ask for the link. If you actually watch my videos you will see I am not attempting to sell the kits but talking to people who already have them.
So now you lie and also attack me for making products and talking about them. You twist it around.
And another lie from you, I do actually give explanation. You guys admit to never reading what I say and just skim through videos so how would you even know.

Seems that the trolls are out for the kill today. I must have hit the nail on the head and caused you guys to panic. Just wait till what comes next.

Rick is promoting his videos and in each of his videos he is talking about his kits,
and pointing you to his page to buy them.

I watched most of that videos, and there is no explanation of his claims of OU in videos,
just talking about his kits and convincing audience that he has something and
everyone has to buy his kits to figure OU secret!

Just a show of a salesman!

And he is using this forum as his own online shop!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 08:28:12 PM
You just multiply lies.

That is exactly what Richard Max Friedrich claims!

Buy it and you will have OU. You will have only 100USD less in your pocket!
He claims that he powered big industrial motors also, but I can not find video of that.
Not even one sentence about that claim on the NET, no matter how much I searched!

This forum is his online shop!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 09, 2019, 08:57:09 PM
Void of truth, yeah that is my point. This is 90-95% psychological. People lie to themselves and others on both sides. Some people want to believe they have something when they don't, and other people convince themselves that something can't happen when it can.
I don't expect you to believe anything I say, just like I have no reason to believe anything a nameless person I have never met says. Such comments have no benefit here and are just wasted space. Just more diversion.
The fact is that everyone believes that millions of people have free energy solar and wind and other means. Solar would have been considered impossible over 100 years ago. Same kind of ridicule would have been hurled at people. I said what I said because it is a fact that many people use the technology in various ways. You assume that people would go online and tell everyone what they have, but that is false. In fact a good number of people have shared things online and you guys don't pay attention to that.

Rick, it is not about belief at all. It's about facts. I commented that I have watched a number of your
videos and it is an undeniable fact that you imply that some of your setups are OU in some of your videos, but it is also
clear to me that either you do not have a basic understanding of how to do proper measurements to determine the
real efficiency of your circuits, or you are dishonest and deliberately avoid doing proper measurements
to mislead people into buying your products. Whether you are deliberately misleading people, or you are deluded,
or whether it is a combination of both or whatever else, I don't know, but it is clear to me that you are just another
person out there misleading the public with false claims. You then turn around in forums like this and claim
you have never implied some of your setups are OU. That is blatantly false. I am not at all interested in your
rationalizations and deflections. Save it for the gullible. I am just pointing out what I have observed.

I think a COP > 1 might be possible. However, when working with AC or pulsed circuits where
accurate measurements can sometimes  be complex or otherwise quite tricky, an experimenter really
has to  configure the test setup to be 'self-looped' and then test if the setup can be made self sustaining.
All else is folly. Many people have posted to these forums over the years thinking they have COP > 1,
but it all falls apart when they try to properly self loop the setup and see if it can self sustain itself.

Anyone who claims or implies a COP > 1 without trying a proper self-looped arrangement first
is either very naive or very deluded or very dishonest.  Period.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 09, 2019, 09:52:44 PM
Contributors.

Things seem to be getting a little " out of control " here.

Whilst not keeping a close eye upon this topic/thread I cannot say that Mr Friedrich has been directly soliciting his kits.

Friendly banter is one thing, lets keep it clean!!

Cheers Grum.

I agree with Graham,     come on guys,   keep it clean.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 09, 2019, 09:57:45 PM
Itsu,
I think you comes into a situation where the super caps acts more or less as a shortcut also (extremely low impedance, as LEDs) when loading them.
My advise is to introduce some type of buck- converter in between the secondary coils [the gathered (high) DC voltages] and the  super cap.
These buck- converters can be made to have a very high efficiency ( >95%).
 
Regards Arne

Good idea Arne,  i have a boost/buck converter which i can use,  so i will give it a try.

Almost finished my 10th coil.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 09, 2019, 10:00:31 PM

Here my setup on checking up on the cooling effect as mentioned by A.king21.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkGvfMnGrVo


Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 09, 2019, 10:27:16 PM
https://m.banggood.com/DIY-Mini-Tesla-Coil-Module-Unassembled-15W-DC-15-24V-2A-Plasma-Speaker-Electronic-Kit-p-1326817.html (https://m.banggood.com/DIY-Mini-Tesla-Coil-Module-Unassembled-15W-DC-15-24V-2A-Plasma-Speaker-Electronic-Kit-p-1326817.html)       
                                                                 4.29 US$ ( Tesla coil price part ?)

Only to show what organized is possible. !
Beginning with the moment that this Tesla coil assembly propagated by Mr.Friedrich shows really OU effect or  equivalent high energy savings by LED lamps use the industry brings fast the coil price down to 1 US$ each.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 09, 2019, 10:37:34 PM
Void,
It's obvious that you have not watched very many of my videos, and probably don't even watch them all the way through. I'm not sure why you fault me for implying some of my setups are OU. Is there something wrong what that? Especially when I don't claim to prove things through video. So there you go, you guys fault me for not showing videos. Then I show one and then you fault me for implying OU or free energy. Then you assume that some arbitrary number of meters shown in a video is required or would prove OU somehow.

Can we stop with the lies here and have a rational discussion about what the expectations are, and justify such expectations.

Just because I don't try to prove OU over the internet (as indeed the title of a recent video stated) doesn't mean I don't have all the meters for all this research or know how to use them, or actually use them all the time. See the problem with you guys is that you are still trying prove OU to yourselves. I'm not trying to convince myself of something I use daily. My teaching is not really focused on the basic levels anymore as I did that many years ago. I have a few videos that do some basic teachings and I am putting together something right now along those lines. Obviously you are looking for something specific and taking your angst out on me here.  :P If you look through enough of my videos there is something for everyone. I didn't do very good quality videos as I really have not had the time over the years. I will soon restart all the videos to be much better quality. I don't take youtube very seriously anyway so they are what they are. As I wrote, these are for my customers and not usually for the general public.

I am not deceiving the public. If that was the case then people would say that. I have thousands of repeat customers and I only do this because they ask for it.

I think you are rather mistaken here and are probably confusing someone else's post with mine. When or where did I say I never implied my setups are OU? I don't usually use that term as I have another understanding of it than y'all do. It doesn't matter to me what definitions you want to use, but over unity is anything above unity. Unity is ambient, so anything above and below that that is powering something is over unity. I know that is not what people usually mean by OU, but there are several ambiguous meanings. People also don't like free energy, but it usually means more of what people are meaning by OU. However, OU is also many times implied to be a self-runner. That is not always what I am after in a setup. Sometimes I have motor systems that rotate batteries around. Some of you would say that is not a self-runner even if it is automated. But these become word games real fast. This is why I said you all have to start at the beginning and begin by showing Kirchhoff is not universal like Lewin showed. Show first that 5 or 10% more energy exists than what should be there. If you can't agree to starting there I ask why not? Use your meters to see more total power on the primary loop and then consider other outputs. Once you do that then you will be in more of a position to appreciate the loving paths idea and addition gains. But people are wanting to skip that and jump into the big gains. As if it is all or nothing. There is no rule that says that. So whether you get 5% or 50% or 95% or 200% more output than what it takes to input, why is any of these more important than the other?

Anyway, I never said I don't imply OU in some of my videos. Most of my videos imply that. So it shows you are not really paying attention. Or maybe you are just trying to create confusion here.

As for measurements, you also have to consider what people can understand. While I do constantly converse with EEs and advanced scientists who are actually at the top of the industry, many of my customers and people on these forums and YouTube would not understand such readings and math and I am trying to avoid over-complicating things. People just want to know how to make it work. If they can rotate batteries around or even just power another load while they run their fan with the same input then they are happy. But as for online forums like this, unless you realize what the meters even mean then what do they matter? I have addressed the meter issues already, but you all opted out of that discussion. Anyway, I don't go by a five minute meter reading. I look at systems over months and years.

Just because you and other people have difficulty in measuring impulses does not mean it is a meaningless or folly system as you say. You need to justify that comment more than just saying it. Says who? Why is anything but self-looping folly? I have worked with motor systems all my life, since 16 years old when I became a full-time mechanic. I have had two electric cars and several electric boats and many electric motors (most of these self-running). Why would it be merely folly to have something more than 100% efficient which was less than 200%? People actually are more open to something that is more efficient than something that is too efficient. So putting out motors that are 115%, which is actually being done, creates a lot more sales.

To say that someone is deluded or dishonest for saying or selling something less than what you are demanding is actually foolish. Most people on this forum would disagree with you. It may be what you are after but it is not foolish to consider less than that, especially in many circumstances. Do you want to go 50% more with your electric car? Is it foolish for someone to do that rather than another 100%? 

Rick, it is not about belief at all. It's about facts. I commented that I have watched a number of your
videos and it is an undeniable fact that you imply that some of your setups are OU in some of your videos, but it is also clear to me that either you do not have a basic understanding of how to do proper measurements to determine the real efficiency of your circuits, or you are dishonest and deliberately avoid doing proper measurements to mislead people into buying your products. Whether you are deliberately misleading people, or you are deluded, or whether it is a combination of both or whatever else, I don't know, but it is clear to me that you are just another person out there misleading the public with false claims. You then turn around in forums like this and claim you have never implied some of your setups are OU. That is blatantly false. I am not at all interested in your
rationalizations and deflections. Save it for the gullible. I am just pointing out what I have observed.

I think a COP > 1 might be possible. However, when working with AC or pulsed circuits where
accurate measurements can sometimes  be complex or otherwise quite tricky, an experimenter really
has to  configure the test setup to be 'self-looped' and then test if the setup can be made self sustaining.
All else is folly. Many people have posted to these forums over the years thinking they have COP > 1,
but it all falls apart when they try to properly self loop the setup and see if it can self sustain itself.

Anyone who claims or implies a COP > 1 without trying a proper self-looped arrangement first
is either very naive or very deluded or very dishonest.  Period.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 09, 2019, 11:13:26 PM
Here my setup on checking up on the cooling effect as mentioned by A.king21.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkGvfMnGrVo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkGvfMnGrVo)


Itsu


That was not my setup. I just replicated your setup and itis not cold. I was using the DSE.
Anyhow before we get into my setup can you measure the voltage across the bulb please?
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 09, 2019, 11:16:01 PM
I have thousands of repeat customers and I only do this because they ask for it.

You have thousands of customers X 150USD kit = 150 000USD.
And they are not buying only cheapest kit.

But you are not living from that!

People are coming to you, because you are promoting your kits as OU.
They will not come to you if your kits are not OU.

And you must start measure your circuits to see what really happens in there.
You can not claim without measuring!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 09, 2019, 11:23:57 PM
   itsu, Gyula:   Why is there a difference when comparing a multi secondary coils pulsing system like what you've shown, to a radio station.   Does the radio station loose it's transmitting power depending on how many people's radios are tuning in to it?
   Why would adding more receiving coils, not work the same? But, it doesn't, normally, adding more coils bring down the total working voltage, and output at the load (led). WHY?  I ask.
   itsu, did placing coils inside of the main coil, help, or not? 
   What the hell,  I'll be nice... once the dust clears...and the truth comes out. Would be good to know, one way or the other.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 09, 2019, 11:45:34 PM
NickZ
A radio station "spits out" say 10 000 Watt.
Each receiver picks up about 0.ooo ooo oo5 Watt

( 0.ooo5 Volt sqr/ 50 Ohm =Watt )

As a bacteria steps upon your toe. Do you feel it?  :)

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 10, 2019, 12:04:32 AM
   And if you multiply that times a few million radios tuned in???
   So, why not use a lot more juice? Why mAs, why leds, the incandescent bulbs won't work?   
   Dr. Stiffler showed that he could light several 120v 12w cree led bulbs on flea farts. But, did not show a self runner doing that.        Why do I always talk about self runners? Because, that's what I'm here for. Lighting a few leds, I can do with a small 10 watt solar panel, already. Guys like itsu have big solar set ups, already. Pulsing leds is almost a joke, for him.
   I think that the real issue here is that Rick does not want to show or prove in any way that what he has is OU, or can self run.   And so, that's where this is all at. I really can't blame his for that, if true, as it can get you into trouble.
No other guys are showing anything like that anymore, either. So, it's really up to us, guys.
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 01:34:43 AM
Not sure what you are saying here.
Yes I have many of these coils. You can't make that here for that price. I'll be making these kinds of coils available soon as I have a very good connection now. And remember, I mentioned the Phase Lock Loop coils as an excellent first half of the Don Smith setup. I showed at my last meeting how you could take three off the shelf products like this and do a complete Don Smith system really easy.
No one said anyone has to buy my kit. It was merely providing something to learn resonance. I also have a 89 page book that is part of the kit that is the most significant part. These bigger coils would be harder to learn from as the voltage is too high, etc. But I demonstrated 4 or so of these at the last meeting.

https://m.banggood.com/DIY-Mini-Tesla-Coil-Module-Unassembled-15W-DC-15-24V-2A-Plasma-Speaker-Electronic-Kit-p-1326817.html (https://m.banggood.com/DIY-Mini-Tesla-Coil-Module-Unassembled-15W-DC-15-24V-2A-Plasma-Speaker-Electronic-Kit-p-1326817.html)       
                                                                 4.29 US$ ( Tesla coil price part ?)

Only to show what organized is possible. !
Beginning with the moment that this Tesla coil assembly propagated by Mr.Friedrich shows really OU effect or  equivalent high energy savings by LED lamps use the industry brings fast the coil price down to 1 US$ each.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 01:44:12 AM
Good point. The DSE is rather important.
So I actually watched the video. This could be done with many coils all around the outside as well.


That was not my setup. I just replicated your setup and itis not cold. I was using the DSE.
Anyhow before we get into my setup can you measure the voltage across the bulb please?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 01:59:49 AM
You are again twisting what I write. I never said I don't get my living from my kits or sales. I said the resonance kit just keeps it going and I really make nothing from it. It is something along the lines of an open source gift. And everything I have shared here has obviously been for free. And what I am doing right now with this new presentation is putting myself out of business. My object is to show people the themes or principles so that they can actually take energy from their existing appliances so that they don't even have to buy much of anything. So would you just stop with all your lies and twisting??

You just don't get it. I only started this work because people have asked for specific parts and chargers and motors. Every single product I have sold both as a publisher for 26 years and in this work, was because someone asked for it. So I made a service available. I didn't advertise but these people told others and bought again. I don't ever push sales. I am not a salesman at all. The kits were started because people asked for them on the groups. I only made the kits for the groups. They were online and people didn't understand what these were without being part of the groups. So it didn't happen as you assume. So now if people look at these parts they will call me and ask me a question before they buy something. Or email me, or ask on youtube, etc. Why do you assume the worst all the time? And even lie about it?

Again I don't use the word OU the way you do so read what I wrote. I use the words free energy and self-runner, etc., to be more specific. These setups are also dynamic and can be run several different ways. So there are no standard numbers. In regards to the batteries, the bigger the batteries the more output there will be. That is how the energy works. There are four different processes I have with these motors, so more than 3 options on how to run the motors. You just don't understand anything about me or my work, videos, products, etc.

You have thousands of customers X 150USD kit = 150 000USD.
And they are not buying only cheapest kit.

But you are not living from that!

People are coming to you, because you are promoting your kits as OU.
They will not come to you if your kits are not OU.

And you must start measure your circuits to see what really happens in there.
You can not claim without measuring!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 02:13:18 AM
Nick, this is a very important question you ask. I'm glad you are finally beginning to realize this. Now we have some progress towards the beginning steps here.  ;D Once you guys can see, by experience, that you can have many coils with loads placed all around the transmitter, and which only lower the input power, then the cat is out of the bag. At that point you can begin to start on a Don Smith system. Then you can go back and read what I have shared and you will see that I was just trying to help you guys. Once you can understand that the magnetic flux can have multiple passes through many external coils then you will be more ready to see how you can have the flux multiply in L2 with quarter wave length, etc. The multi coil system is but an easy way to see how you can multiply the output without any serious fine tuning. Now if you can't find any benefit in that then you may as well throw in the towel because the real deal with the L1 L2 will be more difficult to learn.

   itsu, Gyula:   Why is there a difference when comparing a multi secondary coils pulsing system like what you've shown, to a radio station.   Does the radio station loose it's transmitting power depending on how many people's radios are tuning in to it?
   Why would adding more receiving coils, not work the same? But, it doesn't, normally, adding more coils bring down the total working voltage, and output at the load (led). WHY?  I ask.
   itsu, did placing coils inside of the main coil, help, or not? 
   What the hell,  I'll be nice... once the dust clears...and the truth comes out. Would be good to know, one way or the other.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 03:25:55 AM
You guys do realize that the angle enlarges at the square of the distance don't you? So what does that mean a mile away rather than a few inches or feet away?
The problem for you guys is that the kit was not made for you. The kit was not made for huge power either. It was meant to be small for safety and to learn the sensitive relationships. None of you know these basics as you have all revealed. So you are not even at the beginning yet. The joke is really on you because in the end you will all see how foolish you have been.
Let me ask you, do you really want to learn these things at 100W and 1000W levels? With what I have seen so far, some of you would probably kill yourselves. Or maybe you will just risk Itsu's life. The small LED lets you see the subtle changes and this obviously important. Everyone can see that Itsu is just now starting to see some really basic things here. So why all the mockery?

Your hear for a self-runner but you really are not. You don't care to learn how OU works. I already told you but all you do is mock. If you can't take baby steps with small LEDs then you can't digest solid food yet, or even milk.
I don't see Itsu thinks this is a joke or else he would not be doing this. Even G understands there is something here. Even Nick spends so much time coming back here because he knows it is true. You just are pushing for more. Just have some patience and build a foundation.
You think this or that. You directly distort what I say and are merely pushing for some reaction. I already told you perhaps 100 times now that I do not try and prove anything over the internet. I am not a fool like many of you who live in confirmation bias and mock those who expose that pernicious practice. In the real world I prove this all day long. I demonstrated more OU systems in public than anyone I have known or read about. I'm not claiming in private, as many others have shown way more than me in private. But how many people can you think of who have demonstrated OU in the last 100 years in public? How many people have demonstrated rider lawnmowers, 12' and 26' boats, watercrafts, and taught thousands of people to make their fans also charge batteries? Over 1000 people have come to meetings and seen several systems run. This were not closed meetings and people have known about these meetings for 10 years now. I have made 450 pound motors energizers for the general public. These are no joke. I have demonstrated these, but more importantly my customers have demonstrated these things to themselves.

As for getting in trouble, I have had a lot of trouble for doing all this which you pretend I haven't done. And yes there are lines that if crossed result in trouble. Stan crossed that line eventually. He should have just quietly sold systems here and there as some people have done over the years. But he ran with it and expected to change the world rapidly. Others tried to work with the US patent office, and that would not work unless you are wise enough to back up your controversial claims with prior art. Others were allowed to lease out their systems and become a power company. Then you are just one of them, and that is fine because you are not challenging the system. The truth is people can't really change fast anyway.
Because of this there is not going to be a kw Don Smith system sold on the open public market by anyone. The motor energizer systems are the line for various reasons. They can be built large. I have designed 1/4 MW systems for large battery systems. It is all the same as the small systems but you have to have a lot better framing and use IGCTs for the switching. The positive advantages of these systems is that they are not fuel or weather related. And the batteries get better over time. So they are almost a universal solution in today's world that is only increasing battery usage in alternative energy and grid systems. But completely magnet motors will not be allowed. And any system that competes with weapons systems also. Anything unsafe either. Anything too powerful in a small area. All those systems are all old news and are being done but you will never see them available to the general public any time soon. It doesn't take much to understand why...

   And if you multiply that times a few million radios tuned in???
   So, why not use a lot more juice? Why mAs, why leds, the incandescent bulbs won't work?   
   Dr. Stiffler showed that he could light several 120v 12w cree led bulbs on flea farts. But, did not show a self runner doing that.        Why do I always talk about self runners? Because, that's what I'm here for. Lighting a few leds, I can do with a small 10 watt solar panel, already. Guys like itsu have big solar set ups, already. Pulsing leds is almost a joke, for him.
   I think that the real issue here is that Rick does not want to show or prove in any way that what he has is OU, or can self run.   And so, that's where this is all at. I really can't blame his for that, if true, as it can get you into trouble.
No other guys are showing anything like that anymore, either. So, it's really up to us, guys.
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 10, 2019, 04:48:33 AM
Rick:  Itsu's video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY


3 minutes in -  inserting a relay coil causes output to go UP and input to go DOWN.






WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS!!!


It's like the forum has  Cognitive dissonance
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on July 10, 2019, 05:14:56 AM
Very nice a.king21 you also have realised it.
We can see it, but they do not want (or can not realize) it.
Seems to be that not every one should have it.
Thanks a lot to you and Rick.
Rick:  Itsu's video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY


3 minutes in -  inserting a relay coil causes output to go UP and input to go DOWN.






WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS!!!


It's like the forum has  Cognitive dissonance
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 06:14:17 AM
Yeah I saw that. So multiply that by 500 coils that are better positioned.

A.King, the problem for some may be cognitive dissonance, but for others it is no doubt intentional dissonance. Especially today. Wow the attacks were pouring in. It was so exciting  ;D I even got a call from the moderator apologizing for this. That was very nice. It doesn't matter to me as it only shows everyone how desperate people are to suppress these truths. I won this debate after a few years back in 2006-7. It is old news, but the new generation wasn't around then. They just don't understand that the debate moved on from these basic OU discussions to the demand for 3 times the output or more. I tried to go there a bit here but these guys are not ready for that. They would rather have a tiny LED power itself instead of multiplying out the output many times. I remember those early days when we built the various self-runner magnet motors and others that would spin around for weeks running little LEDs. These things are necessary for people to see that the college physics is all wrong as Lewin and Don Smith said. But after a while these self-runners are not enough. They are just a toy that sits on the shelf doing nothing. I have always been a backyard mechanic so I moved on to rider lawnmowers, boats and cars. Apparently we learned today that I never did such things. It was all just a scifi movie. And like that video that AG posted the other week, the fan kits can't even charge a cap to 1v over 15 minutes  ::) No, there aren't thousands of those around the world either. What's his name in Europe doesn't make his living off of selling them all day long based upon my work. Nope, put your hands over your ears. Send out many posts here to drown out the good information. That can't be true. So it isn't true. Oh, Oh, let's just call it "RF Too Good to be True." Got to love that. We already have Aaron's forum having hacked Don Smith's name with Bruce Perrault the main disinfo guy. So why not just call this RFTGTBT. Yep Radio Frequency...  ;)

Anyway guys, I love you all no matter what you say. But I care more for those who are only watching, and that is why I am doing this and the upcoming presentation. And while I call people out in their lies, you must understand that I still care for everyone here and will give them credit for good questions and observations. I'm not at all convinced that they believe their own words. These are said to create reactions. I was once just as they are so this is not new to me. People are frustrated with themselves. They want someone else to solve their own problems. Naturally they take it out on anyone claiming to have the answers they desperately want. But others just pretend to disbelieve and really are just looking for more details to perfect their own products. Don't kid yourself A.King, most of these guys are just looking to make money by making people on these forums work for them. Itsu is working for them for free. They want me to work for them. But I gave them everything they would ever need already. They pretend that they don't listen but they really are. The goal is also to knock out any competition. This is what Energenic forum did as well. So after they pull the info they attack the source. This is well known and I have watched it since the beginning of the internet.
 
Rick:  Itsu's video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY
3 minutes in -  inserting a relay coil causes output to go UP and input to go DOWN.
WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS!!!
It's like the forum has  Cognitive dissonance
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 10, 2019, 09:21:19 AM
Just added the efficiency factor.

--> Reply #983

correction
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 10, 2019, 10:25:53 AM

That was not my setup. I just replicated your setup and itis not cold. I was using the DSE.
Anyhow before we get into my setup can you measure the voltage across the bulb please?

A.king21,



The setup shown in my video is what i understood from your post #1021:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536322/#msg536322
If its wrong please make it more clear for me.


Concerning the voltage across the bulb, i showed you already in this post:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536323/#msg536323 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536323/#msg536323)

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 10, 2019, 10:53:34 AM
Rick:  Itsu's video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY)


3 minutes in -  inserting a relay coil causes output to go UP and input to go DOWN.






WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS!!!


It's like the forum has  Cognitive dissonance

I am not ignoring this, its on my todo list to further check this out.

I think it has something to do with the fact that bringing 2 (or 3) resonating coil close together their resonance
points splits into 2 points and thus 1 such point getting better in resonance with the big coil frequency thus
picking up a stronger signal like i have shown earlier. here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535901/#msg535901


But first thing on my list is to have 10 satellite coils and do a loopback test with them.
As Void mentioned, thats the only way to show there is enough power on the output to drive the input.

itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 10, 2019, 12:11:15 PM
Quote from: a.king21 on Today at 04:48:33 AM
Rick:  Itsu's video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY
3 minutes in -  inserting a relay coil causes output to go UP and input to go DOWN.
WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS!!!
It's like the forum has  Cognitive dissonance

_  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _

I'm not ignoring that.

When Itsu inserts the relay coil;  That corresponds to that the primary coil (feels) gets a harder coupling factor.
Or can be compared with;    That more secondaries comes in contacts with the primary coil.
With  the same (preserved) coupling factor to ALL newly added sec.coils the input current goes down step by step.

From my sim. test with the same CF 0.o25:

From  1  to  8 coils  the  input  current  goes  down  from    165 --> 35 mA
But at the SAME time the output Power ALSO goes down from 0.o67 -->  0.o22 Watt !!!

And the  the efficiency factor increases from 11% --> 18%

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 10, 2019, 02:11:47 PM
A.king21,





Concerning the voltage across the bulb, i showed you already in this post:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536323/#msg536323 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536323/#msg536323)

Itsu
So I take it that the voltage was 1.712 volts ac R M S.


Strange as the bulb seems brighter.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 10, 2019, 03:00:58 PM
Rick:  Itsu's video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY

3 minutes in -  inserting a relay coil causes output to go UP and input to go DOWN.

WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS!!!

It's like the forum has  Cognitive dissonance

Oh it's not being ignored!  It is an observed effect which warrants a more complete investigation and analysis.

I would like to point out something about Rick's coupled coil arrangement that he has not disclosed so perhaps he is not aware of it and that is, with the transmitter and receiver coils placed horizontally on a flat surface with all axis vertical, the mutual coupling M is negative between the coils.  Thus the K factor is negative.  This can be easily demonstrated on the bench with two coils while maintaining the proper dot relationship.

If however, the receiver coil is now raised off the surface and moved closer to a position so as to be above the transmitter coil, the mutual coupling will move from the negative value through zero, then to a positive value.

Why is this important you ask?  Well, in Itsu's video, the two vertically stacked receiver coils have a positive mutual coupling to each other while combined in reference to the transmitter coil, they have a negative mutual coupling.

Now the so called 'relay' coil is inserted in a horizontal plane affecting the resultant power out and power in through observation.  So the question is, what is the resultant coupling between the coils in this arrangement and why does it increase the impedance of the series resonant transmitter circuit and increase the output?

Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 10, 2019, 03:19:05 PM
   itsu, Gyula:   Why is there a difference when comparing a multi secondary coils pulsing system like what you've shown, to a radio station.   Does the radio station loose it's transmitting power depending on how many people's radios are tuning in to it?
   Why would adding more receiving coils, not work the same? But, it doesn't, normally, adding more coils bring down the total working voltage, and output at the load (led). WHY?  I ask.
   itsu, did placing coils inside of the main coil, help, or not? 
   What the hell,  I'll be nice... once the dust clears...and the truth comes out. Would be good to know, one way or the other.


It's even more disbelieving when you consider some satellite transmitters output as low as 2 kw from a geostationary orbit yet millions can tune in.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 10, 2019, 03:20:38 PM
So I take it that the voltage was 1.712 volts ac R M S.


Strange as the bulb seems brighter.

"My Fluke 8060A true RMS meter reads 2.2V (AC mode)"

So 2.2V rms (in ac mode) according to my DMM and 1.712V rms according to my scope who i trust more in this case.


So what is your cooling effect setup exactly?

Itsu

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 10, 2019, 04:00:34 PM
gut nach mittag gentlemen
have you ever noticed if the wire a coils length out stretched is it's wave length , spacing the winds
allows you to tune the coil to it's wave length if you wound it with 1mm wire then to tune it (for the sake of argument), you wouldn't think Tesla's idea of using the same weight in wire if you were tuning it to a 1/2 or 1/4 might be important do you do this as well as in it's wave length.
so ist das Leben.


AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 10, 2019, 04:10:58 PM
Nick, this is a very important question you ask. I'm glad you are finally beginning to realize this. Now we have some progress towards the beginning steps here.  ;D Once you guys can see, by experience, that you can have many coils with loads placed all around the transmitter, and which only lower the input power, then the cat is out of the bag. At that point you can begin to start on a Don Smith system. Then you can go back and read what I have shared and you will see that I was just trying to help you guys. Once you can understand that the magnetic flux can have multiple passes through many external coils then you will be more ready to see how you can have the flux multiply in L2 with quarter wave length, etc. The multi coil system is but an easy way to see how you can multiply the output without any serious fine tuning. Now if you can't find any benefit in that then you may as well throw in the towel because the real deal with the L1 L2 will be more difficult to learn.

   
   Rich: Just so you know. I have never doubted you, or your shown devices.
   However, none of this is new for me, nor am I afraid of using higher power inputs, and looping the output back to the input.
I have been doing that for years.   I don't remember seeing any recent schematics of your solid state device that are similar to what you would like to see us build.And similar to what a.21 and itsu are trying to replicate,  to see for themselves if what you are trying tell us can be replicated.
   Maybe you can upload a recent diagram or schematic of your device. As otherwise, we can only guess at what you are doing and how your are doing it. Which can be part of the problem with building your type of replication.   I have not followed this thread from the start, just after I saw itsu going at it. So, I don't know all the facts concerning this or your type of build. Therefore, can you provide a schematic, if you have done so already, just repost it, please.
   If interested, here is a link to one of my Dr. Stiffler "diode loop" tests. https://youtu.be/BZsvtlA_Rgc (https://youtu.be/BZsvtlA_Rgc)
   My YouTube channel is under my name, Nick Zec. There you can see some devices that I've worked on over the years.
   And yes, my on going goal is to build a self running solid state device, that is useful, for me. I'm not interested commercializing it in any way. Nor am I any kind of troll, nor someone against free energy, just for the record.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 10, 2019, 04:43:19 PM
Hi Nick,

The many receiver antennas for a radio station are usually located far from the broadcast TX antenna wavelength wise.
One full wavelength for a long wave (LW) station at say 200 kHz is 1500 m, for a medium wave (MW) station at say 1 MHz
is 300 meter. So most receivers receive the so called far field of the TX antenna, many wavelength away from it and the electromagnetic
coupling between the many RX and a single TX antenna can only be negligibly small.  This involves little overall power loss in
the TX antenna. One more thing: the received power in a ferrite antenna inside an AM portable radio for instance is but a few microwatts, the mixer and amplifier stages boost up this tiny level thousands time to drive a some hundred mW loudspeaker,
using the battery power in the radio. All in all, the overall reflected load to the TX antenna from the many receivers is small.

However, when the RX antennas are close to the TX antenna, in the so called near field of the latter, within say a wavelength
(this is mostly an unlikely situation for broadcast stations) the mutual coupling can greatly increase hence the TX power is
influenced more and more. The power output of the radio station may get reduced. Notice though there can be control circuits
to increase the output as a compensation to maintain nominal output, at the price of increased input power to the transmitter.
There were people tapping nearby broadcast station by erecting big sized antennas and used the received energy for feeding incandescent lamps back in the 20s and 30s, they were punished for stealing energy if they got caught. One reason broadcast antennas are not readily built very close to densely populated areas (other reason would be the very high near field radiation
harmful to humans, animals etc).
In the present setup discussed here the receiver coils are very close to the TX coil, within a small fraction of a wavelength.
This inherently involves mutual coupling not only between the TX and RX coils but between the RX coils too. So basically adding
more and more receiver coils would demand more TX power if the TX (antenna) circuit were a parallel LC circuit. But the TX circuit here is a series LC circuit driven from a function generator or from a gate driver IC. 
Consider the impedance behaviour of parallel LC and series LC circuits in the function of frequency.
Will continue later.  If you have questions so far, please ask.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 04:45:34 PM
Videos and pictures cannot properly show lighting as the camera adjusts accordingly. Also the nature of the pulsing phasing has to be considered when there is no smoothing capacitor.

So I take it that the voltage was 1.712 volts ac R M S.


Strange as the bulb seems brighter.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 04:53:58 PM
Yes all these things are to be considered as part of the experiments in the book. It is not my object to spoon feed students. That way they can discover other things that maybe no one has figured out yet. Depending on how you position the coils you can place hundreds of them around the primary (preferably at the 1.25MHz frequency) without drawing more from the input and while actually reducing it. And it is true that you can also do that wrong and decrease the loads while doing that. "Wrong" is relative to what you want to do. It took me 5 minutes to position all my coils around for that video. There was no attempt to tune for ideal positions. Would take a few hours to do that. But at the meeting I also showed how you can position the coils all around, which includes above and below the open sides of the primary.

Oh it's not being ignored!  It is an observed effect which warrants a more complete investigation and analysis.

I would like to point out something about Rick's coupled coil arrangement that he has not disclosed so perhaps he is not aware of it and that is, with the transmitter and receiver coils placed horizontally on a flat surface with all axis vertical, the mutual coupling M is negative between the coils.  Thus the K factor is negative.  This can be easily demonstrated on the bench with two coils while maintaining the proper dot relationship.

If however, the receiver coil is now raised off the surface and moved closer to a position so as to be above the transmitter coil, the mutual coupling will move from the negative value through zero, then to a positive value.

Why is this important you ask?  Well, in Itsu's video, the two vertically stacked receiver coils have a positive mutual coupling to each other while combined in reference to the transmitter coil, they have a negative mutual coupling.

Now the so called 'relay' coil is inserted in a horizontal plane affecting the resultant power out and power in through observation.  So the question is, what is the resultant coupling between the coils in this arrangement and why does it increase the impedance of the series resonant transmitter circuit and increase the output?

Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 05:09:33 PM
Nick,
I don't expect anyone to believe me or anyone.  They have to test things out for themselves.
The problem may not be with you, but as soon as I or anyone posts larger systems then many people are going to get hurt (at least with the rf systems). And the problem before that is that until people understand the basics they will really do some damage with the higher power stuff.
It appears you may be talking about the lower frequency systems. That is fine.
Presently I have no extra time to go off into various schematics as I am trying to begin working on a major new website and presentation that is very important. This will be all organized and highly useful. There is no point trying to put out bits and pieces here.
There is no one schematic. I have hundreds of systems and endless models. That is why I am trying to teach on the principles so that people can pick their flavor with the parts they have. I've never seen anyone approach this research systematically from a simplistic themes or principles approach. The only themes have been too technical or convoluted for most people to understand.

So it may be a few weeks before I can get into specific circuits. My only objective here is to try and encourage people to start at a proper foundation and try and understand the foundational principles and themes. There are some ongoing debates here along these lines and that is all I have time for, as I find it useless to address mistakes that are based on faulty foundations. Hopefully my presentation will make that all clear. It will be a work in progress and never can be perfect.

   
   Rich: Just so you know. I have never doubted you, or your shown devices.
   However, none of this is new for me, nor am I afraid of using higher power inputs, and looping the output back to the input.
I have been doing that for years.   I don't remember seeing any recent schematics of your solid state device that are similar to what you would like to see us build.And similar to what a.21 and itsu are trying to replicate,  to see for themselves if what you are trying tell us can be replicated.
   Maybe you can upload a recent diagram or schematic of your device. As otherwise, we can only guess at what you are doing and how your are doing it. Which can be part of the problem with building your type of replication.   I have not followed this thread from the start, just after I saw itsu going at it. So, I don't know all the facts concerning this or your type of build. Therefore, can you provide a schematic, if you have done so already, just repost it, please.
   If interested, here is a link to one of my Dr. Stiffler "diode loop" tests. https://youtu.be/BZsvtlA_Rgc (https://youtu.be/BZsvtlA_Rgc)
   My YouTube channel is under my name, Nick Zec. There you can see some devices that I've worked on over the years.
   And yes, my on going goal is to build a self running solid state device, that is useful, for me. I'm not interested commercializing it in any way. Nor am I any kind of troll, nor someone against free energy, just for the record.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 10, 2019, 05:35:18 PM
This is partly true. It doesn't cover all the radiation that can be tapped or used as an influence to create energy gains. If it was then there would be no point to doing any of this, and I would not be able to power many more loads than the input, reduce the input to zero or negative, or multiply out as many outputs from each receiver coils as it becomes a transmitter. Yes, a lot of claims here. I just gave a hint of that in the video and picture. If all that is impossible then it will be interesting to try and prove that. The mainstream theory below is an oversimplification of what is going on. I'm not in a position to properly critique it as I don't want to commit to certain terminology yet and there are several things that are very complex. My focus, however, has always been to exploit the neglected realities and ignored processes. And in teaching on such matters one has to carefully quantify the limits that mainstream say exist and then show that which they ignore. So that is why I ask the kinds of questions I do. And I hope that people can answer them for themselves.
So what kinds of gains can we hope to experience in these kinds of setups? I see below, after the glow, a "but". But there is no completion of the contrasted idea of a saying that there is a difference with a series arrangement. I guess we will all have to experience that for ourselves or hope that G can finish that teaser point. Of course I am still waiting for G to tell us why he believes any real gains can be possible. Once he says that I'm sure all of you will just believe OU is possible and then you will be able to do something practical.  ::)

Hi Nick,
The many receiver antennas for a radio station are usually located far from the broadcast TX antenna wavelength wise. One full wavelength for a long wave (LW) station at say 200 kHz is 1500 m, for a medium wave (MW) station at say 1 MHz is 300 meter. So most receivers receive the so called far field of the TX antenna, many wavelength away from it and the electromagnetic coupling between the many RX and a single TX antenna can only be negligibly small.  This involves little overall power loss in
the TX antenna. One more thing: the received power in a ferrite antenna inside an AM portable radio for instance is but a few microwatts, the mixer and amplifier stages boost up this tiny level thousands time to drive a some hundred mW loudspeaker, using the battery power in the radio. All in all, the overall reflected load to the TX antenna from the many receivers is small.

However, when the RX antennas are close to the TX antenna, in the so called near field of the latter, within say a wavelength (this is mostly an unlikely situation for broadcast stations) the mutual coupling can greatly increase hence the TX power is influenced more and more. The power output of the radio station may get reduced. Notice though there can be control circuits to increase the output as a compensation to maintain nominal output, at the price of increased input power to the transmitter.
There were people tapping nearby broadcast station by erecting big sized antennas and used the received energy for feeding incandescent lamps back in the 20s and 30s, they were punished for stealing energy if they got caught. One reason broadcast antennas are not readily built very close to densely populated areas (other reason would be the very high near field radiation harmful to humans, animals etc). In the present setup discussed here the receiver coils are very close to the TX coil, within a small fraction of a wavelength. This inherently involves mutual coupling not only between the TX and RX coils but between the RX coils too. So basically adding more and more receiver coils would demand more TX power if the TX (antenna) circuit were a parallel LC circuit. But the TX circuit here is a series LC circuit driven from a function generator or from a gate driver IC.  Consider the impedance behaviour of parallel LC and series LC circuits in the function of frequency.
Will continue later.  If you have questions so far, please ask.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 10, 2019, 05:35:29 PM
Yes all these things are to be considered as part of the experiments in the book. It is not my object to spoon feed students. That way they can discover other things that maybe no one has figured out yet. Depending on how you position the coils you can place hundreds of them around the primary (preferably at the 1.25MHz frequency) without drawing more from the input and while actually reducing it. And it is true that you can also do that wrong and decrease the loads while doing that. "Wrong" is relative to what you want to do. It took me 5 minutes to position all my coils around for that video. There was no attempt to tune for ideal positions. Would take a few hours to do that. But at the meeting I also showed how you can position the coils all around, which includes above and below the open sides of the primary.

   Rick:  Ok, so I have an air coil tuned to 1.2MHz. It's connected to two 12v batteries providing 24v DC to the driver circuit. This Tesla type of secondary coil then provides an output of about 4000v, at 1.2MHz.  What size do the receiver coils need to be?   Like I said, a schematic with all the component values, coil sizes and details would be nice.
   Gyula: Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am aware of the normal coupling issues with far and near field of a radio transmitter.
But, the idea here is to find the anomaly, and not the normal situation with transmitting radio waves.That was really my question.
  Remember what Wesley has mentioned, concerning transmitting electrical signals world wide. To be received and converted to use able electrical power, with little to no losses in signal. Millions of dollars invested in that updated Tesla type of technology.
There must be something to it... as we all know about signal losses over great distances. But, it's what we don't know, that may be important, in this case. Perhaps using a higher input, and placing the receiver coils further away may help. Or not?
   As itsu has shown a slight decrease in input power, while adding more coils onto the main coil, what makes this possible is the question at hand. And how many other coils can also tap into that near field, while dropping the input even lower, to actually obtain a higher output, than the input. Of course, that is still to be seen, replicated and shown. Whether one believes it, or not, is up to each person's discretion.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 10, 2019, 09:06:44 PM
...
   As itsu has shown a slight decrease in input power, while adding more coils onto the main coil, what makes this possible is the question at hand.
...
Hi Nick,
Please bear with me, I need to finish for today and go out for a short excursion. Will be back in a day's time and answer then. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on July 10, 2019, 09:26:09 PM
What about the setup Ruslan Kulabuhov proposed ? Some tidy coupled resonant circuits with the output stage having current in the same phase as input current . If output is loaded , current rise but still not influence the input. If the circuits are wireless coupled or by wires or cores is immaterial. I'd like to know if this is possible.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 11, 2019, 12:46:37 AM
   itsu, Gyula:   Why is there a difference when comparing a multi secondary coils pulsing system like what you've shown, to a radio station.   Does the radio station loose it's transmitting power depending on how many people's radios are tuning in to it?
   Why would adding more receiving coils, not work the same? But, it doesn't, normally, adding more coils bring down the total working voltage, and output at the load (led). WHY?  I ask.
   itsu, did placing coils inside of the main coil, help, or not? 

Hi Nick. There is a difference in the way things work and the way they should be analyzed
between the near field around coils and antennas, and the far field. The near field can roughly be
described as the space around a coil or antenna where self sustaining EM radiation hasn't fully formed.
Placing receiving coils within the near field of a 'transmitter' coil will cause loading on the transmitter coil.
The further away the receiver coil is away from the transmitter coil, the less power can be drawn from the transmitting coil.
Receiving antennas are normally well in the far field range of an RF transmitter, and do not load down the transmitter.
The power the transmitter is consuming is lost in the driver circuitry and the EM radiation from the antenna whether there are
any receiving antennas or not. At quite low frequencies, a coil will not radiate much EM radiation, so you are mainly concerned with
the near field.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 11, 2019, 01:17:44 AM
Itsu's video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY
3 minutes in -  inserting a relay coil causes output to go UP and input to go DOWN.
WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS!!!
It's like the forum has Cognitive dissonance

Hi a.king21. I have been busy with various other things and still am, so I haven't seen any
of Itsu's test videos here, but I will point out a common misconception in circuit arrangements such as you
described, which is the assumption that input power consumption should go up and down in direct relation to the amount
of output power being delivered to the circuit load.

That is not always the case however. In AC circuits we have the concept of impedance matching. Changing the output
configuration by adding or removing coils or changing coil windings or loads, etc., for example, changes the impedance
matching between the input circuitry and the output circuitry. This will cause the efficiency of the overall AC circuit
to change. If a change is made to a circuit arrangement which increases the overall circuit efficiency of the circuit,
you can potentially deliver more overall output power to your load(s) while seeing a drop in input power consumption.
This is due to increasing the circuit's efficiency by improving the input to output impedance matching.

However, such an increase in efficiency tells an experimenter nothing about whether the circuit is anywhere near COP =1, or not. That can
only be determined by properly measuring the overall circuit efficiency. Since making such efficiency measurements can sometimes be
tricky in AC circuits, the only really half decent reliable test of whether an OU experimenter may be anywhere near COP =1 or better, is to try to
self loop the circuit. Such a test setup bypasses any potential mistakes in measurements or mistakes due to incorrect assumptions or the experimenter
potentially overlooking other important factors which are throwing off their measurements. There are numerous ways that experimenters
can potentially be mislead by just looking at measurements alone (especially at lower power levels), so a self-looping 
arrangement becomes the only real practical benchmark way to separate the wheat from the chaff. We have all seen
where experimenters thought they were onto something really special only to find that it all falls apart when they try to self-loop
their circuit arrangement. :)

The first law of 'over unity' testing:
If you haven't tested your circuit arrangement using a self looping arrangement and left it to run for a reasonable
length of time (depends on power source being used and total power consumption), then you are not in any sort
of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 11, 2019, 02:40:04 AM
Void:  I agree entirely.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 11, 2019, 09:48:52 AM


The first law of 'over unity' testing:
If you haven't tested your circuit arrangement using a self looping arrangement and left it to run for a reasonable
length of time (depends on power source being used and total power consumption), then you are not in any sort
of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP.
Hi Void,
I would like to add that when the DUT is running from a battery supply, be aware of the current drawn as a percentage of the C20 rate of the battery. If the current drawn is very substantially less, than the C20 rated current for the battery, then the effective battery capacity is very substantially increased (ref Peukerts Law). This can result in what I refer to as 'stalling', where the battery terminal voltage appears to 'hang' steady for a long period of time. It is also possible that the battery terminal voltage will rise for a period of time, especially if the battery is sulfated to an extent, giving the impression that the DUT is running on free energy! It is in this situation, as well as heavily loaded situations on a battery, that vagaries appear and can very easily lead to false conclusions on the efficiency of a given DUT. Using low current LED's and big batteries, exacerbates this 'hanging' condition. Also, allowing high frequency voltages onto the battery supply rails without effective filtering, also results in vagaries leading to false conclusions.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 11, 2019, 04:17:59 PM
Hi Void,
I would like to add that when the DUT is running from a battery supply, be aware of the current drawn as a percentage of the C20 rate of the battery. If the current drawn is very substantially less, than the C20 rated current for the battery, then the effective battery capacity is very substantially increased (ref Peukerts Law). This can result in what I refer to as 'stalling', where the battery terminal voltage appears to 'hang' steady for a long period of time. It is also possible that the battery terminal voltage will rise for a period of time, especially if the battery is sulfated to an extent, giving the impression that the DUT is running on free energy! It is in this situation, as well as heavily loaded situations on a battery, that vagaries appear and can very easily lead to false conclusions on the efficiency of a given DUT. Using low current LED's and big batteries, exacerbates this 'hanging' condition. Also, allowing high frequency voltages onto the battery supply rails without effective filtering, also results in vagaries leading to false conclusions.

Hi Hoppy. Yes, I agree. Using a relatively high capacity battery with a small load at the output could
give the false impression that the battery is staying close to fully charged. Itsu avoids that
sort of problem by testing using super caps, I believe, which is good, but the super caps I have
are fairly leaky so not the best for that kind of testing. Maybe you can get a type of super caps these
days that have low leakage losses. Not sure. That would be great for testing if very low leakage
super caps are available.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 11, 2019, 05:18:32 PM
This is why I always start my meetings with extended details on this exact information. If you can't understand the complexities of batteries you will not know how to evaluate a free energy system that uses batteries. I share all these details in many of my videos and expose the tricks and self-deceptions people do in videos and 5 minute tests. I have dealt with thousands of people on the old forums with this. This is old news but people still oversimplify batteries. I rarely find an engineer that has a proper understanding of batteries, so I never assume that anyone knows even the basics.

I usually start my videos with batteries at rest for a long time so people can see I am not manipulating voltages. I often draw attention to a trick some people pull along these lines. Here are two:

1. Someone loads down an input battery with a big load just before the video starts. Then they start the video and run the energizer kind of system with the same battery while showing a voltmeter on that battery. Guess what will happen? The voltage will slowly go up over the short time of the faked demonstration. Why does that happen. Well because the person is a deceiver. But this physically happens because there is a big voltage drop with the big load, and the battery is bouncing back to a resting voltage or stabilized place. The new load of the motor is relatively smaller so the bounce back is still taking place and showing a rising voltage. If they would run the video long enough you would see it eventually go down. So I always talk for a long time before I run any setup with batteries for this reason. Now you can understand one of the reasons to have long videos  :)  :o Not that I am trying to prove anything, but I am trying to give an example in that.

2. I have shared this for many years now, and probably say this on the phone every day. If a battery is sulfated it will rise in voltage because only a small portion of the plate is being charged. Once our dissolving of the sulfation takes place it will come back down before it goes up again (while slowly increasing the capacity). But tricksters who know this will show a big sulfated battery with fast increasing voltage and claim that this means it is really charging fast. When a visited a lab in south east Pennsylvania that charges people a lot of money just to see it, I found nothing working there but my motors. Then I was shown some old batteries that I was told charge up very fast. After looking at my motor connected to them for a few minutes I confirmed that this was happening and that the batteries had no capacity.

Don't believe the hype as I have always warned. These are two reasons why you cannot trust any video as proving anything. These are done without any editing manipulations.

But as for this line below: "This can result in what I refer to as 'stalling', where the battery terminal voltage appears to 'hang' steady for a long period of time." This takes place more or less at all discharge rates in most batteries, and not merely at less than the C20 rate. The lead acid battery has various plateaus in its discharge and charge curves. This changes with more and more usage with the Renaissance charging processes. For example, a 12V battery can often sit at 12.2V for a long while before it takes a dive more suddenly (when the load conditions remain the same). It can also hold the voltage above 10.5 and then dramatically drop of and the battery is done. This is why AH ratings are to 10.5V and inverters shut off at that point. But what we experience is a more linear voltage that starts with higher resting voltage and holds consistent voltage all the way down to zero to allow for real loading below 10.5V and up to 2 times the total real capacity of the battery (and loading it down to zero and cycling does not harm the batteries when they are properly charged). For example, I could drive my Porsche with 144V bank for 10 miles and the resting voltage, even after a day of resting, would be considered fully charged at 152V (like 12.66V battery). Then when I got to the 126V discharged place (not under load), which would be like 10.5V on a 12V battery, I would not worry about my batteries taking a dive as all my other friends in the electric vehicle club would. They would have to get towed home, while I would still drive many more miles with no substantial sudden dip of power.

Needless to say, I am not making any mistakes with batteries in my loading or calculations or metering. I know my batteries and their real capacitors and curves very well as I deal with them full time for 15 years now. Very few people bother to learn these basics and fewer still understand proper battery charging. All the rules of the battery bible, or Peter's video talk about such, do not apply with proper battery charging. There are no ideal battery charging voltages. There are no cycling limits or depth of discharge concerns with proper charging.

So you can rightfully dismiss other people's claims because they show no evidence of understanding these things, and actually show evidence of deceit or mistake in these matters. But I have been more vocal in educating people in these matters than anyone. My frequent and prolonged example of this is even considered annoying.

As for the black box video, if you are trying to imply that such mistakes were being made, this was not the case. I worked those batteries for 2 weeks charging and discharging them down to zero to fully evaluate them with resistive loads. They did not have any dips or plateaus, and they were only 14AH each. If they were 60 to 100AH batteries then you could bring this up as a real question. But the motor was drawing around 6W continuously for 1 hour while maintaining the same voltage after the initial voltage drop. It continuously charged another battery that started up from 11.8V resting and continued over 13V the entire time. The input battery did rise a little when the first or second 100W bulb was added to the 3 other 3W loads because it needed some slight tuning (as done with the RPM). You could also see the neon bulbs coming on because too much energy was coming back to the motor side and it was slightly unbalanced at that point. So the input battery charges up in that case when there was too much load.

This was done not over 5 minutes, but 1 hour so that people could see that this was not an example of plateaus, etc. It also showed that it was not a matter of sulfation as a sulfated battery has no real capacity and under load just drops and powers nothing. You cannot run a 14AH battery with a 6W motor load and 3W + 3W + 3W load for an hour and not see voltages drop. If you think otherwise then show us a video and explain how that could be. A 15W load will steadily drop the battery voltage down, and will certainly show immediate voltage drops with each load being added. But add a 100W load in addition and the voltage would certainly change for the lower. Then a second 100W bulb. That particular setup was made to power all the large LED modules (over 100W each, over 1000W total) in a office/shop while keeping both batteries in a balanced place.

I have demonstrated this at many meetings, and in the last three years I have often had all the parts open and running for two days straight. People bring in their Fluke meters and oscopes and measure everything. But I am not there to prove OU but rather to teach them how to do this. They will often bring in their setups and we will get them going properly. But I always spend several hours starting the first day with battery details and handouts on the subject.

As for high frequencies and impulse charging, it is also important to know that you can never effectively measure a battery while it is being impulsed. You can get a feel over time where a battery is at with the relative voltage readings of a particular meter after cycling it many times and properly loading it so that you know where it is at. But different meters will give different voltages depending on the nature of the pulse. And as I mentioned, pulsing LEDs without capacitors can also be tricky to evaluate. These bulbs all had filtering and capacitors to allow for a more constant load condition.

Hi Void,
I would like to add that when the DUT is running from a battery supply, be aware of the current drawn as a percentage of the C20 rate of the battery. If the current drawn is very substantially less, than the C20 rated current for the battery, then the effective battery capacity is very substantially increased (ref Peukerts Law). This can result in what I refer to as 'stalling', where the battery terminal voltage appears to 'hang' steady for a long period of time. It is also possible that the battery terminal voltage will rise for a period of time, especially if the battery is sulfated to an extent, giving the impression that the DUT is running on free energy! It is in this situation, as well as heavily loaded situations on a battery, that vagaries appear and can very easily lead to false conclusions on the efficiency of a given DUT. Using low current LED's and big batteries, exacerbates this 'hanging' condition. Also, allowing high frequency voltages onto the battery supply rails without effective filtering, also results in vagaries leading to false conclusions.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 11, 2019, 05:27:15 PM
Void,
They probably are needing proper forming. See my recent video on the subject:
https://youtu.be/2oN8wcM_nz8
If you contact the manufacture or look at the datasheet you can learn about this. If electrolytic capacitors sit for the good part of a year then they become uneven inside and will unevenly charge and also be leaky. They can also explode because of this.
Super caps are great because they are low ESR and charge and discharge fast. But they are limited in respect to their low voltage when you are dealing with higher voltage impulsing. So using a hv strobe cap in parallel can allow for the best of both worlds. But there is a science as to finding the ideal capacitor voltages to work with in relation to step charging and discharging...

Hi Hoppy. Yes, I agree. Using a relatively high capacity battery with a small load at the output could
give the false impression that the battery is staying close to fully charged. Itsu avoids that
sort of problem by testing using super caps, I believe, which is good, but the super caps I have are fairly leaky so not the best for that kind of testing. Maybe you can get a type of super caps these days that have low leakage losses. Not sure. That would be great for testing if very low leakage super caps are available.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 11, 2019, 05:34:32 PM
   The smaller 4AH 12v battery are cheap and will work, and can be used for testing purposes. Let that size battery run the device all night, then test its voltage, and amperage. If it's not dead in the morning, you have something. The one hour tests, using big car batteries is useless for demonstrations purposes, when lighting LEDs, or making short videos, (or long ones).
   A 10w incandescent bulb, would show the long term draw on the smaller battery, much better. As leds can light on a fraction of their rated voltage, and current. Even the 100w leds, still show some good light at much lower draws.
  The impedense also has to also be factored in, for higher efficiency, when using different coils and/or bulbs. But, that alone will not cause an OU situation.
   Placing a grid powered led next to the device's gated and boasted led, and pointing it to the camera a few feet away, will show the difference if there is any. It's not the best test, but it does work. As putting the negative probe of the scope probes on the coils, MAY affect the readings. Perhaps it may work using only the positive probe, although the signal will look somewhat messy. Let me know what you think, concerning the effect of scope probes, connected onto this type of device.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 11, 2019, 06:47:08 PM
Rick,
How do you measure the source battery capacity before and after a long demonstration to confirm no loss or perhaps a gain in stored energy? As you know battery terminal voltages are not a reliable indicator of battery capacity. Also, Do you demonstrate your procedure for this to your students before and after demos?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 11, 2019, 07:12:58 PM
Rick,
How do you measure the source battery capacity before and after a long demonstration to confirm no loss or perhaps a gain in stored energy? As you know battery terminal voltages are not a reliable indicator of battery capacity. Also, Do you demonstrate your procedure for this to your students before and after demos?
I hate to be a cynic  ;D but unless you have a device that's capable of eather delaying the
humble electron to the finishing post than your grab circuit your never going to achieve much and that's a fact! Because that's what it amounts to.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 11, 2019, 08:49:22 PM
Yes, that is part of the morning talk/demo of the battery chargers and inverter demo. Two of my industrial chargers do actual resistive load measurements with 4 or 6 power settings. There is no other way to properly determine what a battery can put out. So don't be deceived that you can know the true AH capacity of a battery with a CCA car battery tester that puts a 100A resistive load over 10 seconds. The charger loads down the battery to 8V on a 12V battery (and the equivalent for the 24V and 2V models) but only measures to 10.5V what the actual AH are. It gives volts and Amps over time minute by minute. Then it does that one or more times and gives a % gain reading as well. This has been done by at least 20 companies around the world that have constantly used these machines 24/7 for about 12 years now. They do it for a business to restore thousands of batteries. The AH reading will of course be at the particular C rate of the load settings, so you still have to put those numbers into the online calculator to compare what the manufacturers specs are at the stated C rates (usually they should have 2 C rates listed). That means they will have maybe a C 20 rate and a C 8 or 5 rating. And the differences as we mentioned are relating to Peukert's law.

So years ago on my many monopole groups I tried to get people to get used to doing at least 10 full cycles before they do any experiments. That way the new battery can stabilize and they can also appreciate what the battery can really put out. Also what it takes to charge it. What we found, as a side note, was that the maximum efficiency was when you only charge the battery up to say 85-90% as the last percentage too more energy. We saw many people want to have their batteries rest at 14V and were charging them to 16V or higher under charge. Anyway, they were able to learn the battery curves and many things by that experience. It made them aware of how sulfated batteries can have voltage but no capacity, and how new batteries can have some changes in the first few cycles. Also that starter batteries cost a lot more than true deep cycle batteries for the amount of lead/real capacity.

Your comment about terminal voltages is only partly true so it is a mistake to say that. Once you have established what you batteries and system is doing then the voltage reading can properly be used as a reference indicator based upon a properly controlled environment. You guys are still playing with hobby toys and assume we just make ignorant measurements over 5 minutes. Well that was what Bedini did, but not what I do. Some of the engineers I have worked with are at the top of the ladder and experience in their line of work and have the best equipment available, which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course that is totally unnecessary but if you want all the functionality then that is what you get. Some of the Midtronics battery capacity analyzer systems actually do make a short load tests after you load in all the numbers. I would never trust them to be accurate, which they are not for what we are doing, so we always to full charge and discharges to determine the actual capacity.

As for demonstrations, there is no way to properly demonstrate enough cycling of the batteries to give someone an exact sense of the actual capacity of the batteries. The goal is not to prove OU by means of the meetings, but to show how to prove it to yourself many ways. More and more of the people have systems already and just are looking for more advanced information. In the earlier years when people were more interest in just seeing an OU system we would take more time to do that. But now people are more interested in setting up systems and learning how to get maximum output. There are many things that have to be covered. For example, when I do the inverter demonstrations I go over the basics of voltage drops. So they see that and we go over the basic math and that means. For example, I'll do a demonstration of 3000W of big incandescent bulbs with a KWmeter circuit breakers and inverter. On a set of 12V golf-cart batteries the voltage drop will very quickly drop below the 10.5V minimum. So we go over how that doesn't mean the batteries have discharged very much at all. They have to learn these basics to be able to use this technology and know how to estimate what a system is doing. This takes several hours to do, and if I don't do this then they will not properly understand any demonstrations. Showing an OU system will not mean much for most people if they don't know how to evaluate it. I'm doing a video right now where I will talk about how Gerard deceived a customer of mine that I just met with yesterday in Canada. I'll explain some things in that video I'll upload tonight.

Rick,
How do you measure the source battery capacity before and after a long demonstration to confirm no loss or perhaps a gain in stored energy? As you know battery terminal voltages are not a reliable indicator of battery capacity. Also, Do you demonstrate your procedure for this to your students before and after demos?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 11, 2019, 09:34:23 PM
Rick,

With all this talk about the finer points of LABs, your claims of 'easy' OU, and your having knowledge of many ways to accomplish such , I propose a reasonable test for you to perform to verify your claims that would convince critics like myself to accept what you are saying and teaching!

Take 1 (one) LAB of your choice and any circuit of your choosing that you have developed over the years.  Power the input of your circuit with this single LAB and take the excess output from the same circuit that you claim produces OU and use it to replace the assumed smaller amount of energy drawn from the LAB.  IOW, the LAB is the summing point of energy consumed by your circuit and the energy produced by your circuit.  This should be relatively easy to do and would be a great teaching tool at your seminars.

Regards,
Pm

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 11, 2019, 11:24:05 PM
AG,
We have done that with the Bill Fogal arrangement. This is a charge barrier technology.
But you are not correct in assuming that is the only thing we can do. All we have to do is spin electrons and have a means of collecting the effects. That is easy to do in different ways.

I hate to be a cynic  ;D but unless you have a device that's capable of eather delaying the
humble electron to the finishing post than your grab circuit your never going to achieve much and that's a fact! Because that's what it amounts to.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 12, 2019, 12:07:33 AM
AG,
We have done that with the Bill Fogal arrangement. This is a charge barrier technology.
But you are not correct in assuming that is the only thing we can do. All we have to do is spin electrons and have a means of collecting the effects. That is easy to do in different ways.
Rick, Thanks for the reply, that doesn't surprise me would ESR i have come across that befor would you like to explain a little more please ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 01:16:09 AM
P,
I appreciate your suggestion. I'll make a few points as a response:

1. While it is true that LABs are really more complicated that people realize, it is also true that people can experience free energy with them without really knowing all the details mentioned. You guys are only after one kind of system that is self-running. That is fine, but you need to appreciate first something less than that, that is very easy. A claim that is easier to verify is a fan charging another battery while it is running. All the energy is used up in the Kirchhoff loop and the excess is free energy. I know that is old news, but skeptics don't want to admit that.

2. Yes I know many ways to do OU but I will not get into most of them because such are either not practical for one or more reasons or they will get people into trouble. What you are suggesting is a non-battery system, and that crosses a line. I suppose if you added enough parts to make it big, complicated, and expensive then that may be fine. But small simple systems like that are not allowed for the general public. This would be me taking one of the AC motors I just showed in this video: https://youtu.be/2amFnvh9zqg  and making them run themselves (which is easy enough to do when you understand how this energy works). There are thousands of these running all around the world. But no one will ever sell them to the general public. All I'll say is that if you rewire it inside and add three of the right capacitors then you can do that. I've been in many trades over the years and grew up hearing stories about people doing that. These are rumors all over the US and Canada and elsewhere. But they are real. I don't expect anyone to believe that.

3. The thing that everyone has to realize is that the input battery is part of the system. Some of the energy goes back to the input battery. That is why using a power supply does not give the same results. I can't really get into that in a few words here, but there are several important reasons why a battery is necessary in the energizer setups. Now I'm explaining how to have such a battery just stay charged. You can either do the two or three battery bank setups where the batteries can be rotated or just remain charged. I decided a few years back to show both of these. I got in enough trouble for doing that. That is good enough for anyone to provide all of their electrical needs. But to remove the batteries is an entirely different system.

4. What I show at my meetings is more important than that because it shows you how to multiply the output as many times as you want.

Rick,
With all this talk about the finer points of LABs, your claims of 'easy' OU, and your having knowledge of many ways to accomplish such , I propose a reasonable test for you to perform to verify your claims that would convince critics like myself to accept what you are saying and teaching!
Take 1 (one) LAB of your choice and any circuit of your choosing that you have developed over the years.  Power the input of your circuit with this single LAB and take the excess output from the same circuit that you claim produces OU and use it to replace the assumed smaller amount of energy drawn from the LAB.  IOW, the LAB is the summing point of energy consumed by your circuit and the energy produced by your circuit.  This should be relatively easy to do and would be a great teaching tool at your seminars.
Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 12, 2019, 01:27:22 AM
Hi Nick,

This was the core of my earlier post where I finished it yesterday:

...
In the present setup discussed here the receiver coils are very close to the TX coil, within a small fraction of a wavelength.
This inherently involves mutual coupling not only between the TX and RX coils but between the RX coils too. So basically adding
more and more receiver coils would demand more TX power if the TX (antenna) circuit were a parallel LC circuit. But the TX circuit here is a series LC circuit driven from a function generator or from a gate driver IC. 
Consider the impedance behaviour of parallel LC and series LC circuits in the function of frequency.
...

And this was the core of your latest answer to me:

 
   ...
   As itsu has shown a slight decrease in input power, while adding more coils onto the main coil, what makes this possible is the question at hand. And how many other coils can also tap into that near field, while dropping the input even lower, to actually obtain a higher output, than the input. Of course, that is still to be seen, replicated and shown. Whether one believes it, or not, is up to each person's discretion.


First I continue with well known things: the impedance of a parallel LC circuit is high at resonance (several tens of kOhm and higher) and the impedance of a series LC circuit is low (from a few Ohms down to a fraction of an Ohm), the latter depends mainly on whether the coil is wound with relatively thin or thick wire, whether has a lossy core or the core has very little eddy current and hysteresis losses, and  whether the tuning capacitor is of relatively good quality. Practically the DC resistance of the coil can dominate the series LC circuit impedance at resonance when there is no any other coil coupled to it.

Now let's consider this: our gate driver IC drives the series LC TX circuit at its resonant frequency and we couple a parallel LC circuit to it (also resonant at the same frequency). Induced voltage appears across the coupled LC circuit and if now we load this parallel LC circuit, the induced voltage amplitude will be reduced. However what is also very important here is that due to the mutual electromagnetic coupling between the two LC circuits, they influence each other's resonant impedance like this: the moment our load appears across our coupled LC circuit, this reflects back to the TX series LC circuit in the form of an increased series resistance. They influence each other's resonant frequency of course but we retune and fine tune them as needed for best energy transfer, changing also the coupling factor by the distance. If we do not retune the LC circuits, then the AC impedance of the small off tuned LC TX circuit also increases even though we have not loaded the coupled LC circuit yet. This is why I mentioned above the impedance behaviour of series and parallel LC circuits in the function of frequency. 

When the resonant impedance of the TX circuit increases from say its original 1 Ohm example value to a 3 Ohm transformed back impedance, then naturally the gate driver IC can drive less current into the same TX circuit than it could in the previous unloaded coupled circuit case. This is important to understand: more and more coupled coils will increase the series impedance of the series LC TX circuit higher and higher. 
This process manifests measurably across the TX coil and capacitor: their resonant voltage amplitude gradually decreases, say from the initial some kV to as low as some hundred volts or lower. 
In return for this, the AC current taken out from the output pin of the driver IC will decrease according to the increasing number of the satellite coils and a decreasing AC current involves a decreasing DC current draw by the driver IC from its DC supply.  This process inherently involves a decreasing input power draw by the gate driver IC of course, hence the EM field the TX coil creates around itself will also decrease gradually.   

If there is a trick or two here which still maintains the high level of oscillations in the LC circuits close to each other, then it has not been revealed. The so called DS effect whereby electrons are taken from the Earth via a ground wire and the useful output gets enhanced is not proven yet for us to give the COP > 1 claim so it remains a claim.  A.king21 recently reported his measured results of the effect of grounding: it increased output power by some milliwatts if I recall correctly.  Also, a quarter wave trick is mentioned, with no proof yet for us.  Of course, members tell lies in forums, in videos etc. so nothing can be proved by these... 

We may need to clarify what a gate driver IC does?  It does the same what a function generator, FG (set to square wave output) does: it switches a given (adjustable) voltage amplitude onto a load at one moment and takes it away at another moment (square wave amplitude and frequency). Both the FG and the IC output pin have a low output impedance (normally 50 Ohm for an FG and much less than that for gate drivers) so when the voltage is taken away the low impedance remains. In fact the low output impedance is present all the time regardless of the voltage amplitude between the 'hot' output and the negative supply rail or common ground. 

Let's suppose (for simplicity) the DC resistance of TX coil is again 1 Ohm I already wrote above as an example. When we drive this series LC by an FG at the resonant frequency, the 50 Ohm impedance of the FG comes in series with this 1 Ohm to form a closed circuit via the series LC components. Suppose the FG is set to 10 Vp unloaded output voltage and you connect the series LC at resonance across the FG output. So you load down the 50 Ohm output of the FG practically by 1 Ohm. The 10 Vp reduces to a much smaller output voltage i.e. to 0.196 Vp (voltage division between 50 and 1 Ohm). And a peak AC current of 0.196 Amper will be maintained in the series LC circuit. 

Now what happens when you use a gate driver to drive the series LC TX circuit? A decent gate driver can have an output impedance of around 1 Ohm. So it would drive a load of 1 Ohm, represented by the series LC TX circuit at resonance when no coupled satellite circuits are present. If the driver IC is fed from 10 V DC, its unloaded output voltage changes between quasi zero and 10 V peak voltage (a normal 50% duty cycle square wave) when driven from an FG.  If we load the output pin of the IC by the 1 Ohm resonant AC impedance of the TX circuit, the output voltage would drop to 5 V peak voltage due to the voltage divison between the 1 Ohm internal and 1 Ohm load impedance. And a peak AC current of 5 amper will be maintained in the series LC TX circuit.  Confront this to the case of the same TX LC circuit when driven by the FG that has the 50 Ohm output impedance.
This last two paragraph answers the question I kindly asked twice from A.king21 about 6 weeks ago, see here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534887/#msg534887 

but he gave no answer. This was my question: "So what is it which insures a larger EM field from the transmitter coil when a gate driver is used?

There would be some more to add but this post is already too long,  I hope I answered your questions and if you do not understand something, please ask.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 01:44:55 AM
The Fogal arrangement creates a tank that he was oscillating around 500MHz and more. In the right position with the semiconductor (transistor in his case) it effectively blocked current flow while the amplifier was running normally. Depending on how you look at it you will describe the process accordingly. It does relate to some of the things we have considered here...

Rick, Thanks for the reply, that doesn't surprise me would ESR i have come across that befor would you like to explain a little more please ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 01:59:40 AM
If you were meaning these comments then that is what we are doing with the motors energizers and the many Don Smith magnetic resonance systems. Some of the theory is in the book. The basic idea is that if you impulse electrons electrically then they will respond with a magnetic impulse first, followed by an electric impulse after. And if you magnetically impulse electrons they will first respond with an electrical impulse followed by a magnetic impulse. This is relatively easy to do and is being done all the time. It is just a matter of realizing this and setting up a good collection system. The resonance tank system creates a lot of such spin for free, and also at high CPS. Once you get that then it is game over. Then you will laugh and say, I now see why you wrote what you did to G.

"But you are not correct in assuming that is the only thing we can do. All we have to do is spin electrons and have a means of collecting the effects. That is easy to do in different ways."
Rick, Thanks for the reply, that doesn't surprise me would ESR i have come across that befor would you like to explain a little more please ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 12, 2019, 03:03:52 AM
G:  I would prefer it if you would direct your technical questions to Rick. I do not have a permanent lab at my disposal and Rick is far better placed to answer your questions. My valuable time is spent verifying what I need to move on with other experiments. If you choose to disbelieve me that is absolutely fine and i will concede that you know better.
Itsu:  I can't remember the cold electricity circuit and it is not important to me if anyone verifies it or believes it. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 04:04:08 AM
G,
I appreciate the time you put into typing all this out. Many words do promote clear and proper communication. Less words create ambiguity.

Nice attempt of understanding what is going on. But this wouldn't explain input going to zero, because then you would have to have zero EM field as you suppose. You are not considering everything that is taking place. Or rather, everything that can take place once proper spacing/placement is achieved and other factors. As I said, (A) you can make the secondary coils decrease while the input also decreases (as you mention), (B) you can make the input increase while other coils are added, or (C) you could make the input decrease while additional outputs are added without decreasing the existing outputs. The latter can be done carefully until the input is zero or even negative. Increasing or decreasing the system resistance is not the explanation. I understand that you claim you have not experienced that and thus do not believe it. But it is not very hard to see for yourself how you can add loads that decrease the input while the loads do not decrease.

There is more going on here than your standard coupling here. And that is where people just assume it is the same sort of thing. Resonance coupling has a gain over regular magnetic coupling. The tank is a real "amplifier" and the secondaries become their own transmitters as well. Once that is understood it really opens doors for you. People assume that there is a firm coupling so that the same energy is just transferred back and forth so that everything is in balance in regards to input and output. Naturally anything contradicting that is automatically disbelieved and special proof is required for that when no special proof is expected for confirming disprove claims. One video shows Itsu doing A and or B and that is believed but if another video shows C then it is needing more proof.

As for the DSE that is easy to see that the load is doubled or replicated as Don showed. While we do not need to focus on that it still is relevant. And quarter wave length gains are not a matter of needing proof but simply a matter of using them. People can say well I disbelieve such and such and content themselves to not opening their eyes to what is in front of them. I'm not saying that is the case here, but only saying that the onus is on either claimant. No one has the monopoly on science, no matter how popular an idea is. I mean come on didn't we all used to believe that the earth was round before the flat earthers convinced us even more of that  :o

When the resonant impedance of the TX circuit increases from say its original 1 Ohm example value to a 3 Ohm transformed back impedance, then naturally the gate driver IC can drive less current into the same TX circuit than it could in the previous unloaded coupled circuit case. This is important to understand: more and more coupled coils will increase the series impedance of the series LC TX circuit higher and higher. 
This process manifests measurably across the TX coil and capacitor: their resonant voltage amplitude gradually decreases, say from the initial some kV to as low as some hundred volts or lower. 
In return for this, the AC current taken out from the output pin of the driver IC will decrease according to the increasing number of the satellite coils and a decreasing AC current involves a decreasing DC current draw by the driver IC from its DC supply.  This process inherently involves a decreasing input power draw by the gate driver IC of course, hence the EM field the TX coil creates around itself will also decrease gradually.   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 04:25:18 AM
Nick,
I'm not following you. You have this or are asking what size coils do you need to have to do this? Not sure if you mean the same thing here with the words secondary coil and receiver coils.
A full circuit with proper loading is found in the rectenna technology. These will have proper impedance matching and frequency conversion to run DC loads. That is mainstream science already. All of the setups so far, like Itsu's or mine have not used proper or efficient filtering. We are only using a fraction of the actual energy that could be used because the capacitors, diodes, and/or loads are not meant for RF. So everything after the receiver coil (and in a way the coil itself) is already given in the rectenna tech. So that is what you would do. Just consider the many patents on the subject. The thing to examine is the gains in a resonance tank circuit, and it's effects on the local environment that can benefit from such gains and radiation. You are wanting a loop system, and that is fine. I'm just pointing to the easiest way for you to do that.

   Rick:  Ok, so I have an air coil tuned to 1.2MHz. It's connected to two 12v batteries providing 24v DC to the driver circuit. This Tesla type of secondary coil then provides an output of about 4000v, at 1.2MHz.  What size do the receiver coils need to be?   Like I said, a schematic with all the component values, coil sizes and details would be nice.
   Gyula: Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am aware of the normal coupling issues with far and near field of a radio transmitter.
But, the idea here is to find the anomaly, and not the normal situation with transmitting radio waves.That was really my question.
  Remember what Wesley has mentioned, concerning transmitting electrical signals world wide. To be received and converted to use able electrical power, with little to no losses in signal. Millions of dollars invested in that updated Tesla type of technology.
There must be something to it... as we all know about signal losses over great distances. But, it's what we don't know, that may be important, in this case. Perhaps using a higher input, and placing the receiver coils further away may help. Or not?
   As itsu has shown a slight decrease in input power, while adding more coils onto the main coil, what makes this possible is the question at hand. And how many other coils can also tap into that near field, while dropping the input even lower, to actually obtain a higher output, than the input. Of course, that is still to be seen, replicated and shown. Whether one believes it, or not, is up to each person's discretion.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 04:58:42 AM
Void,
And that is the question. What is really happening in the near field. We don't even have a quarter wave length of distance. And yet quarter wavelength relationships really matter in the near field. We have both capacitive and magnetic relationships here. Not just with coils but many other objects, including our bodies. A lot of radiation is measured around the transmitter, and placing 500 loaded coils around it still produces radiation beyond them. Even placing a proper secondary inside of the primary, or around it (where all the radiation passes through it, will still allow this radiation to go beyond it to other coils and beyond them. This is a matter of fact of basic observation. This is all rather involved and it is perplexing to people who want a tidy simplistic model that conforms to the presumptuous law of conservation. This is why I made the kit as I did with the sensitive LED to learn these relationships in the near field. People really don't have any experience with these things because they are either doing radio in the far field and never even think about getting anything but weak signals they are amplifying, or if they work in the near field it is with one receiver coil that has an encrypted connection (which doesn't allow for the gains we are dealing with). And actually, what I am saying here is the very near future technology that will be in all your homes with the new rectenna tech that will be together with the internet monitoring of everything (ie, internet of things). WIFI powering and interacting with everything in a Smart (actually the dumbest thing ever) existence. Your clocks and gadgets and probably everything over $1 will have it's own IP and be powered this way. Things will be far more 'efficient' in this way at a sacrifice of your privacy and the every present risk of being hacked or just things not working. Total information awareness and total dependence upon his technology for everything. This is the new currency and the next new world order...

Hi Nick. There is a difference in the way things work and the way they should be analyzed
between the near field around coils and antennas, and the far field. The near field can roughly be
described as the space around a coil or antenna where self sustaining EM radiation hasn't fully formed.
Placing receiving coils within the near field of a 'transmitter' coil will cause loading on the transmitter coil. The further away the receiver coil is away from the transmitter coil, the less power can be drawn from the transmitting coil. Receiving antennas are normally well in the far field range of an RF transmitter, and do not load down the transmitter. The power the transmitter is consuming is lost in the driver circuitry and the EM radiation from the antenna whether there are any receiving antennas or not. At quite low frequencies, a coil will not radiate much EM radiation, so you are mainly concerned with the near field.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 05:38:27 AM
This first part is true. And misconceptions do happen all the time. You have a circuit that is not running efficiently and the output is low. But then you tune it properly and it produces a higher output. But all that is within the Kirchhoff loop rule. Once we are dealing outside of that primary loop, and experiencing gains beyond the death circle then we are dealing with another matter in reactive loops that can result in additional gains. This is the dirty little secret everyone wants to avoid. Again I bring up the billions of DC brushless motor fans around the world. They are given an efficiency rating that can be in the mid to high 90s in some cases. So if you move a single diode and charge a battery at the same time you still have the same efficiency, input energy, and CFMs produced/consumed on the motor death (because it kills the source charge) loop. But now you have another battery being charged, or capacitor, or bulb running, etc. Now it is easy to see that the gains on this reactive loop are much more than the few % left to make up 100%. So efficiency only goes so far. The reactive loop as properly loaded (which is never done in mainstream) is free energy and the combined loads in motor and battery are above unity or 100%.

The same is true with these RF systems in the near field, even when non-RF parts are used on purpose to keep the output safe and low for the amateur. 90 coils loaded down produced many times more light than should have been possible. And 500 coils could have been used, each of which can lower the input without lowering the loading of each bulb.

The secret of this is understanding the principles of free energy. The first is the 'Selfish Circuits or Loving Giving Paths' principle of open/reactive loops in addition to closed single body loops. Once you create and use the reactive loop in the fan you have a many body system that has a gain. Once you make a resonance tank circuit you have a many body system rather than one. The key is to also use that as I am doing with many receivers or many turns secondary. Each secondary must be arranged to be just like the reactive loop in the fan, and not as part of the death loop of Kirchhoff. You can couple these receiver coils as a single body and experience that under unity dynamic most of you assume as only possible, or you can make it a reactive loop/receiver that is like the fan and allows for a more independent relationship with the primary body and thus has an independent gain above the primary body efficiency. Direct coupling is mostly under unity, but loose coupling allows for a many body network or system to experience real gains as T. W. Barrett said 30 years ago and as Kron finally realized long before him: "A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author's years-long search." Once you guys get this first point you can begin nonlinear reactive engineering.

Hi a.king21. I have been busy with various other things and still am, so I haven't seen any of Itsu's test videos here, but I will point out a common misconception in circuit arrangements such as you described, which is the assumption that input power consumption should go up and down in direct relation to the amount of output power being delivered to the circuit load.

That is not always the case however. In AC circuits we have the concept of impedance matching. Changing the output configuration by adding or removing coils or changing coil windings or loads, etc., for example, changes the impedance matching between the input circuitry and the output circuitry. This will cause the efficiency of the overall AC circuit to change. If a change is made to a circuit arrangement which increases the overall circuit efficiency of the circuit, you can potentially deliver more overall output power to your load(s) while seeing a drop in input power consumption.
This is due to increasing the circuit's efficiency by improving the input to output impedance matching.

However, such an increase in efficiency tells an experimenter nothing about whether the circuit is anywhere near COP =1, or not. That can only be determined by properly measuring the overall circuit efficiency. Since making such efficiency measurements can sometimes be tricky in AC circuits, the only really half decent reliable test of whether an OU experimenter may be anywhere near COP =1 or better, is to try to self loop the circuit. Such a test setup bypasses any potential mistakes in measurements or mistakes due to incorrect assumptions or the experimenter potentially overlooking other important factors which are throwing off their measurements. There are numerous ways that experimenters can potentially be mislead by just looking at measurements alone (especially at lower power levels), so a self-looping  arrangement becomes the only real practical benchmark way to separate the wheat from the chaff. We have all seen where experimenters thought they were onto something really special only to find that it all falls apart when they try to self-loop
their circuit arrangement. :)

The first law of 'over unity' testing:
If you haven't tested your circuit arrangement using a self looping arrangement and left it to run for a reasonable length of time (depends on power source being used and total power consumption), then you are not in any sort of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 06:43:08 AM
I forgot to respond to this second point in this post. There is no truth in this statement at all. There is no law of over unity testing like this. Just because a few of you guys want and demand a self-looping does not mean you can't draw any COP conclusions. Says who? And why? You guys have not justified this assumption. You can very easily understand and measure the efficiency of your primary loop circuit and also measure your reactive loops where the gains take place. These do not have to feed back into each other to understand the total COP. That is non-sense. You guys are just wanting someone to give you a self-looping circuit and work for you for free. So you ignore any claims that would be different than this.

It just so happens that I may want to power a fan at the same power input and CFMs while charging a battery or running a light. And maybe I only have time to do the basic change by merely moving one diode in the circuit. Now if this only gives me 70% more energy than previously, while still running the motor exactly the same, then why couldn't I measure that COP? Why would I have to self-loop this for it to be significant? Why is not 10% over unity acceptable? Or 20%? Or 50%? Self-looping is not always practical or what is wanted. And it is better to not do it by pushing current either. It allows for more output when you keep the input at zero in other ways. Now the fan circuit could be replaced with a fast switching mosfet circuit like I have in my motors and give better results than merely moving one diode.

So let it be settled that this often repeated assumption is false. It is not a first law of OU research to demand a self-loop system to determine COP. Another OU.com myth busted!

The first law of 'over unity' testing:
If you haven't tested your circuit arrangement using a self looping arrangement and left it to run for a reasonable length of time (depends on power source being used and total power consumption), then you are not in any sort of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2019, 07:31:39 AM
Is this system OU?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 08:06:22 AM
You have to define what the system is and justify every part of it in relation to your goal. You are making several assumptions here. Obviously your load is very limited. There is not enough detail to understand what you are doing there. You can't determine what the lighting is from the video. But if you are powering only 3 LEDs at 300ma then obviously that is not impressive. Maybe you were just trying to disprove the QEG? Would that even be that hard to do?

I guess I'm wondering your point in bringing up this old video from 3 years back. Are you trying to prove something with this video and all your numbers? I fail to see some of the points being made. One of the things that cannot be determined from such a video is if you are making your setup properly for your goal. And are you suggesting that your load was all that could be run from that? That is implied in the video.

Is this system OU?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 12, 2019, 10:52:41 AM
Rick,
Thanks for your reply ref measuring battery capacity. So, it becomes very difficult indeed to determine a system COP when loads are just a small fraction of a batteries rated A/hr (inverse Peukerts Law). Therefore, for example, how to determine how long a given number of constant current fed very low power LED lamps running as a load on a system powered from a say a 12A/hr, 20A/hr or 40A/hr LA source battery should stay illuminated in order to declare the DUT is running OU.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 12, 2019, 12:21:56 PM
Rick,
Thanks for your reply ref measuring battery capacity. So, it becomes very difficult indeed to determine a system COP when loads are just a small fraction of a batteries rated A/hr (inverse Peukerts Law). Therefore, for example, how to determine how long a given number of constant current fed very low power LED lamps running as a load on a system powered from a say a 12A/hr, 20A/hr or 40A/hr LA source battery should stay illuminated in order to declare the DUT is running OU.
Hoppy, does LA have a double meaning when dealing with LA batteries ie Losey Accumulators as 50% in charging is lost so bang goes your theory !  you need a less losey way to store the energy!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 12, 2019, 12:39:28 PM
G:  I would prefer it if you would direct your technical questions to Rick. I do not have a permanent lab at my disposal and Rick is far better placed to answer your questions. My valuable time is spent verifying what I need to move on with other experiments. If you choose to disbelieve me that is absolutely fine and i will concede that you know better.
Itsu:  I can't remember the cold electricity circuit and it is not important to me if anyone verifies it or believes it.

A.king21,

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

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 12, 2019, 12:41:31 PM
Void,
And that is the question. What is really happening in the near field. We don't even have a quarter wave length of distance. And yet quarter wavelength relationships really matter in the near field. We have both capacitive and magnetic relationships here. Not just with coils but many other objects, including our bodies. A lot of radiation is measured around the transmitter, and placing 500 loaded coils around it still produces radiation beyond them. Even placing a proper secondary inside of the primary, or around it (where all the radiation passes through it, will still allow this radiation to go beyond it to other coils and beyond them. This is a matter of fact of basic observation. This is all rather involved and it is perplexing to people who want a tidy simplistic model that conforms to the presumptuous law of conservation. This is why I made the kit as I did with the sensitive LED to learn these relationships in the near field. People really don't have any experience with these things because they are either doing radio in the far field and never even think about getting anything but weak signals they are amplifying, or if they work in the near field it is with one receiver coil that has an encrypted connection (which doesn't allow for the gains we are dealing with). And actually, what I am saying here is the very near future technology that will be in all your homes with the new rectenna tech that will be together with the internet monitoring of everything (ie, internet of things). WIFI powering and interacting with everything in a Smart (actually the dumbest thing ever) existence. Your clocks and gadgets and probably everything over $1 will have it's own IP and be powered this way. Things will be far more 'efficient' in this way at a sacrifice of your privacy and the every present risk of being hacked or just things not working. Total information awareness and total dependence upon his technology for everything. This is the new currency and the next new world order...
Sounds like a conspiracy to fraudulent use of grid access and use wifi if you don't mind the risk of brain cancer.
and if you cant turn it off silver paper works wonders in blocking it if not with lead, alternatively there is always surgery or IMP.
When the Junta has no respect for peoples privacy.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 12, 2019, 01:10:30 PM
Hi AlienGrey,

Yes I think he would be the same A.King like you guess.

I need to ask what you mean here on BEMF: is it the voltage spike created across a coil when its current is interrupted?  If yes, then it is okay it can be captured and it can be reused again,  though I have not seen from anyone that the this_way_captured energy provided COP > 1 performance when added to the input energy. 

But after you mentioned BEMF you continued with: "and resonance and above all the protocol" and I wonder how you mean resonance here when you grab the quantity of energy created by switching to get the BEMF ?  If this is how you meant, that is.

I would appreciate if someone would point to the video time where Don Smith shows the (almost instantaneous) rapid capacitor charge: I would like to understand how to benefit from it.

Gyula
https://overunity.com/17186/the-bifilar-pancake-coil-at-its-resonant-frequency/msg534659/#new
Pease note the circuit was designed by Nelson Rocha. and works very well.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 12, 2019, 01:41:34 PM
Is this system OU?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74)


TK,

nice demo on VAR and how people can be confused by it.

I tried similar on my big coil to see how much REAL power there is in the tank coil.

I monitor the gate driver input while the big coil is in resonance and unloaded.
The input voltage and current are 3V @ 38.2mA  (see picture) which means 114mW.

The big coil tank circuit measures 242V rms (702Vpp) @ 84.8mA rms (244.6mApp) see screenshot.

So about 80 times higher voltage and 2.2 times higer current, but with a phase shift between V and I of almost 89.8°.


The 89.8° phase shift is the party pooper here as it ruins the apparent 242 x 0.0848 = 20.5W power.

The scope calculates the real power in the tankcircuit to be around 102mW, which is close to the input power (114mW).

I use low voltage (3V) on the gate driver to not damage the current probe while measuring in the HV tank circuit.

Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 12, 2019, 01:56:42 PM
Itsu ,your example means

(Vpp xApp )/ real power : >  1000 times amplitude

From this expansion- peak how much magnetic force can become explored and gained ?

Magnetic charge
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2019, 02:19:00 PM
You have to define what the system is and justify every part of it in relation to your goal. You are making several assumptions here. Obviously your load is very limited. There is not enough detail to understand what you are doing there. You can't determine what the lighting is from the video. But if you are powering only 3 LEDs at 300ma then obviously that is not impressive. Maybe you were just trying to disprove the QEG? Would that even be that hard to do?

I guess I'm wondering your point in bringing up this old video from 3 years back. Are you trying to prove something with this video and all your numbers? I fail to see some of the points being made. One of the things that cannot be determined from such a video is if you are making your setup properly for your goal. And are you suggesting that your load was all that could be run from that? That is implied in the video.
I just asked one question.

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


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




Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on July 12, 2019, 03:03:52 PM
I just asked one question.

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


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

Exactly!!!   :'(    :(
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 12, 2019, 03:12:21 PM
Is this system OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvf9Uo7UVx0

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 12, 2019, 04:05:49 PM
   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
       
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 12, 2019, 05:01:34 PM
I forgot to respond to this second point in this post. There is no truth in this statement at all. There is no law of over unity testing like this. Just because a few of you guys want and demand a self-looping does not mean you can't draw any COP conclusions. Says who? And why? You guys have not justified this assumption. You can very easily understand and measure the efficiency of your primary loop circuit and also measure your reactive loops where the gains take place. These do not have to feed back into each other to understand the total COP. That is non-sense. You guys are just wanting someone to give you a self-looping circuit and work for you for free. So you ignore any claims that would be different than this.

It just so happens that I may want to power a fan at the same power input and CFMs while charging a battery or running a light. And maybe I only have time to do the basic change by merely moving one diode in the circuit. Now if this only gives me 70% more energy than previously, while still running the motor exactly the same, then why couldn't I measure that COP? Why would I have to self-loop this for it to be significant? Why is not 10% over unity acceptable? Or 20%? Or 50%? Self-looping is not always practical or what is wanted. And it is better to not do it by pushing current either. It allows for more output when you keep the input at zero in other ways. Now the fan circuit could be replaced with a fast switching mosfet circuit like I have in my motors and give better results than merely moving one diode.

So let it be settled that this often repeated assumption is false. It is not a first law of OU research to demand a self-loop system to determine COP. Another OU.com myth busted!

Hi Rick. If you only knew just how nonsensical your statements are here...
I actually already clearly explained why setting up a proper self-looping circuit arrangement is pretty much an
essential requirement before anyone can be in any position to reasonably suggest that they are getting a COP > 1
with their circuit setup.

Undeniable Fact:  Most people who experiment and search for OU are not anywhere near experts on power measurements on complex
AC circuits or even on basic AC circuits for that matter, and people in these forums often make all kinds of mistakes in their measurements and
in their assumptions, and also often overlook one or more important factors which may otherwise be throwing off their measurements. Self-looping
the output power of a device to loop back to assist or fully provide the input power to the claimed COP > 1 device is therefore a very important step to
rule out measurement errors, etc. Such a self-looped arrangement doesn't completely rule out external factors affecting the results, but if the
self-looping testing is set up properly and reasonably it can go a long way towards eliminating being mislead by measurement errors and incorrect assumptions.
One of course does not use self-looping to measure the COP, just to determine if the COP might really be greater than 1.

Rick, from seeing a number of your videos in the past, it doesn't surprise me at all that you are completely missing the great importance of a
self-looped test setup in this area of experimentation, and that you responded back with a bunch of nonsense. BTW, I was just kidding about the part
about this being 'a law', but really this testing requirement should be an absolute given in this area of experimentation after all the many years of people
posting nonsense in these forums and on YouTube. There is just no question about the great importance of trying to implement
circuit self-looping in regards to any circuit setup which an experimenter thinks might be exhibiting a COP > 1.
If a person can't understand why this is so important, and it really should be obvious why it is very critical, then IMO they should take
up a new hobby. They are most likely only going to end up misleading them self and possibly others as well
who are also naïve and gullible, unless their intention is to mislead others and try to separate other people from their money.
There are number of people like that out there as well.

In probably most cases, examination of a claimed COP > 1 circuit arrangement which may drag on for months and months here due to
experimenters making incorrect measurements and/or making incorrect assumptions or missing other important factors influencing their results,
could quickly be analyzed as to its real performance by simply taking a little bit of time to determine a reasonable and proper way to self-loop
the circuit setup and then observe how it really performs.  :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 12, 2019, 05:08:02 PM
Nick,
I'm not following you. You have this or are asking what size coils do you need to have to do this? Not sure if you mean the same thing here with the words secondary coil and receiver coils.
A full circuit with proper loading is found in the rectenna technology. These will have proper impedance matching and frequency conversion to run DC loads. That is mainstream science already. All of the setups so far, like Itsu's or mine have not used proper or efficient filtering. We are only using a fraction of the actual energy that could be used because the capacitors, diodes, and/or loads are not meant for RF. So everything after the receiver coil (and in a way the coil itself) is already given in the rectenna tech. So that is what you would do. Just consider the many patents on the subject. The thing to examine is the gains in a resonance tank circuit, and it's effects on the local environment that can benefit from such gains and radiation. You are wanting a loop system, and that is fine. I'm just pointing to the easiest way for you to do that.

   
   Rick:  Thanks for the reply. Yes, I have that, which I mentioned. It just so happens that the secondary of Tesla coil is tuned to the 1.2MHz frequency. It's frequency can be controlled to a certain point, by adding or removing coils on the secondary, (or by connecting to different taps along the secondary). Or by inserting ferrite into the Tesla secondary coil. It's output is dependent on the input power, but normally it's around 4 to 6000v. My question was about the specs on the receiving coils, and what is needed there.
   Dr. Stiffler was doing many different tests along the same or similar lines. And itsu, Gyula, and of our other guys here were also  involved in, long with myself. To see if the Doc's dying secret, the "diode loop", would provide for higher efficiency in lighting 120v AC 12w led bulbs. I followed and replicated some his efforts until his death. The diode loop was a very interested project. And somewhat similar with what's going on here. One important point though, the Doc found that at 13.6MHz there is a signal from the planet, (or atmosphere) that can be tapped into, so that was where he tuned his circuits to. However, that particular non man made signal may be something specific to his location, and may vary from place to place, or not, that part was not verified.
   Anyway, I still don't know just exactly what circuit is used on this project. And still need a more specific schematic, if there is one.
   I do have a 2MHz SG, Scope, multimeters, 12v batteries etz... So I'm ready to play ball...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 12, 2019, 05:17:42 PM


https://overunity.com/17186/the-bifilar-pancake-coil-at-its-resonant-frequency/msg534659/#new (https://overunity.com/17186/the-bifilar-pancake-coil-at-its-resonant-frequency/msg534659/#new)
Pease note the circuit was designed by Nelson Rocha. and works very well.
Hi AlienGrey,

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

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 12, 2019, 06:19:33 PM
P,
I appreciate your suggestion. I'll make a few points as a response:

1. While it is true that LABs are really more complicated that people realize, it is also true that people can experience free energy with them without really knowing all the details mentioned. You guys are only after one kind of system that is self-running. That is fine, but you need to appreciate first something less than that, that is very easy. A claim that is easier to verify is a fan charging another battery while it is running. All the energy is used up in the Kirchhoff loop and the excess is free energy. I know that is old news, but skeptics don't want to admit that.

2. Yes I know many ways to do OU but I will not get into most of them because such are either not practical for one or more reasons or they will get people into trouble. What you are suggesting is a non-battery system, and that crosses a line. I suppose if you added enough parts to make it big, complicated, and expensive then that may be fine. But small simple systems like that are not allowed for the general public. This would be me taking one of the AC motors I just showed in this video: https://youtu.be/2amFnvh9zqg  and making them run themselves (which is easy enough to do when you understand how this energy works). There are thousands of these running all around the world. But no one will ever sell them to the general public. All I'll say is that if you rewire it inside and add three of the right capacitors then you can do that. I've been in many trades over the years and grew up hearing stories about people doing that. These are rumors all over the US and Canada and elsewhere. But they are real. I don't expect anyone to believe that.

3. The thing that everyone has to realize is that the input battery is part of the system. Some of the energy goes back to the input battery. That is why using a power supply does not give the same results. I can't really get into that in a few words here, but there are several important reasons why a battery is necessary in the energizer setups. Now I'm explaining how to have such a battery just stay charged. You can either do the two or three battery bank setups where the batteries can be rotated or just remain charged. I decided a few years back to show both of these. I got in enough trouble for doing that. That is good enough for anyone to provide all of their electrical needs. But to remove the batteries is an entirely different system.

4. What I show at my meetings is more important than that because it shows you how to multiply the output as many times as you want.

RF,

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

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

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

Regards,
Pm



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 12, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Hi AlienGrey,

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

Gyula
Well yes, but you would have to stick very rigidly to it's construction guide lines  the two video's are on you tube,
I have chatted with Nelson but the original was some what different and smaller than ''master ivo's'' version. I only made the device as far as L1 and L2 goes it can more or less instantly charge a 2.2uf cap (2x 4.7uf 350v) instantaneously to over 500 volts and is lethal.  AG
ps
But I suggest if you want any further details you really should contact Nelson, him self as he is the man!
AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 07:10:56 PM
Yeah, it really depends on what you are wanting to do. I think there is some mad rush to try and prove something out in five minutes, and that if you can't do that then it's assumed you have nothing. Obviously a system without a battery would show that but batteries take some time to know. There are a lot of mistakes people make as we have talked about already. The 4AH battery, as someone mentioned, is easier to see things faster, but it is also a bottleneck because of its size. We are not merely dealing with the inverse Peukerts law in this respect. When I went from charging a 12AH 12V battery to charging a 48V bank of 2000AH batteries I got a COP of over 200 and over 200 times the charging energy over the smaller battery while the input and motor stayed the same. Obviously that is not relating to Peukerts law. Even though that is amazing, it still was not a practical use of such a big bank. It is more practical to charge them faster with much less COP.

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

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

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

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

Rick,
Thanks for your reply ref measuring battery capacity. So, it becomes very difficult indeed to determine a system COP when loads are just a small fraction of a batteries rated A/hr (inverse Peukerts Law). Therefore, for example, how to determine how long a given number of constant current fed very low power LED lamps running as a load on a system powered from a say a 12A/hr, 20A/hr or 40A/hr LA source battery should stay illuminated in order to declare the DUT is running OU.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 07:17:42 PM
AG,
That is very true. So when you can rotate batteries around then what does that mean about how much energy has to be produced?

Hoppy, does LA have a double meaning when dealing with LA batteries ie Losey Accumulators as 50% in charging is lost so bang goes your theory !  you need a less losey way to store the energy!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 07:36:38 PM
If you were following what I have been saying over the last 3 weeks you would see that I agree with that. I do not try and prove anything with a video. But this means that you cannot disprove anything with a video as well.
The big difference with your setup and mine is that you were using 300ma to power three tiny leds and I was using 60 and 80ma powering 90 LEDs and also that I could have easily 500. I also had witnesses who are actually reading this forum right now. But again, you can't prove anything over the internet, which is what I titled the video showing this.

I just asked one question.

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


Is this system OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 12, 2019, 07:41:54 PM

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

Thanks again Rick for your detailed reply. However, it has not really explained how, that if I was a student of yours, how you could satisfy me that a given system of yours was running OU, given battery vagaries we have discussed. As an example, take a multiple coil and LED system like demonstrated in the video you posted and assume that I just want to experience an OU demo from you as my tutor. Also, assume that I'm not a complete rookie and that I have a good conventional grounding in electrical principles and measurement. Take me through the stages you would take to demonstrate an OU system to me at the bench so to speak, not by video.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 12, 2019, 08:20:18 PM
Lead acid batteries in good condition are generally taken to have a charge and discharge efficiency of roughly around 85%,
but could be as low as 50% efficiency or possibly even lower depending on the exact Lead Acid battery type and the battery
condition. However, if a claimed OU circuit setup has a COP of say >= 2, then you should be able to self-loop
and completely do away with any battery at the input. You may be able to do that with an even lower COP.
If the battery is claimed to be an essential part of the OU setup, then you should still be able to self-loop
as long as you leave the circuit running in self-looped mode for a reasonable length of time in comparison to
the battery capacity.

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

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


Is that too honest? :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 12, 2019, 08:56:46 PM
"OU( or not" ) battery circuit/cycle :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20190328&CC=DE&NR=112017003611A5&KC=A5# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20190328&CC=DE&NR=112017003611A5&KC=A5#)   
in patent office approvement process
actually :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=DE&NR=102016008893A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=4&date=20180125&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#

and
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=10&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20070201&CC=ES&NR=2265253A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=10&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20070201&CC=ES&NR=2265253A1&KC=A1#)
Technical approvement and decision : B1= protection granted ( in ES= Spain) ,date 2008-01-16
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 12, 2019, 10:03:57 PM
AG,
That is very true. So when you can rotate batteries around then what does that mean about how much energy has to be produced?
I have no experience in battery shuffling. I have in my case some solar panels charged with an FET controlled charger and i only have the one battery and it doesn't like it and at over 140 Euros each time I think I will be buying Ni or a high farad capacitor battery bank next time round.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 12, 2019, 10:10:57 PM
That's a good point Nick. I'll remember that. I guess that video was pointless then.
But I don't think so. Meters have their place and can show many valuable things. However, always remember that what you put in is what you will get out, and I'm referring to energy here, but assumptions. The meter is made to do something specific and does not notice everything.
Any readings can be wrong
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 12, 2019, 10:59:31 PM
For anyone who cares at all about reality, here is a recap of the essentials in OU circuit testing.
These laws were derived from many years of practical experience and have been proven many times over to be true and immutable laws.

First law of 'over unity' circuit testing:
If you haven't tested your circuit arrangement using a self-looping arrangement and left it to run for a reasonable
length of time (depends on power source being used and total power consumption), then you are not in any sort
of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP (i.e., the supposition of COP > 1).

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

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


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 12, 2019, 11:32:55 PM
A.king21,

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

Itsu
Your comment to me on another forum is insulting.  I don't need to prove cold electricity to you or anyone else. This is for each person to determine for themselves. It was a DSE circuit.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 13, 2019, 12:19:46 AM
I for one would love to see a reasonable demonstration of 'cold electricity' or 'negative electricity'.
I can't say I have ever seen a demonstration of such concepts which looks reasonable to me, but I have an open mind.
Nothing would be more cool (no pun intended) than to be able to power a load without depleting the power source and while the circuitry and
load remains cold or gets colder or forms frost as the circuit operates, and I am not talking about a refrigeration type circuit.  ;-)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 13, 2019, 12:20:46 AM
It was a DSE circuit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 13, 2019, 12:25:58 AM
Rick, Rick, Rick... What are we going to do with you amigo? ;)
You refuse to listen to reason. :)

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

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 12:40:09 AM
Nick,
I didn't get into any of Dr. Stiffler was doing so I have no comment on that. So you say you replicated some of his stuff. Does that mean you succeeded in finding something new and useful, or merely tried to do what he was claiming but didn't succeed? As for unusual frequencies in different locations there are enough reportings of such to warrant investigation. There are, however, always many experiments going on around the world and you can never be sure why you are picking up signals these days. This brings out a related subject of learning how to harvest from existing environmental sources. My goal in the end of all this is to show people how to tap energy from all their local environments and not have to go to too much trouble to do that.

As for making a particular setup there are many options. Make coils with high Q, use high quality capacitors for highest gains. Ideally you don't have receiver coils but just a proper L2 coil. Actually, ideally you just have electronics parts after you learn how this all works and just design what you want with simulation software. What I did with this kit is as far as I really could do without crossing some lines. It shows people enough so that they can take it from there on their own. So this isn't really hard. It just takes an open mind and some patience to learn the relationships. It is a tool to come to some conclusions on. I will try and get the new website up this weekend and that should help more.

   Rick:  Thanks for the reply. Yes, I have that, which I mentioned. It just so happens that the secondary of Tesla coil is tuned to the 1.2MHz frequency. It's frequency can be controlled to a certain point, by adding or removing coils on the secondary, (or by connecting to different taps along the secondary). Or by inserting ferrite into the Tesla secondary coil. It's output is dependent on the input power, but normally it's around 4 to 6000v. My question was about the specs on the receiving coils, and what is needed there.
   Dr. Stiffler was doing many different tests along the same or similar lines. And itsu, Gyula, and of our other guys here were also  involved in, long with myself. To see if the Doc's dying secret, the "diode loop", would provide for higher efficiency in lighting 120v AC 12w led bulbs. I followed and replicated some his efforts until his death. The diode loop was a very interested project. And somewhat similar with what's going on here. One important point though, the Doc found that at 13.6MHz there is a signal from the planet, (or atmosphere) that can be tapped into, so that was where he tuned his circuits to. However, that particular non man made signal may be something specific to his location, and may vary from place to place, or not, that part was not verified.
   Anyway, I still don't know just exactly what circuit is used on this project. And still need a more specific schematic, if there is one.
   I do have a 2MHz SG, Scope, multimeters, 12v batteries etz... So I'm ready to play ball...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 13, 2019, 12:49:21 AM
Some people are under the mistaken notion that if someone is a PH. D. in Physics,
they must automatically have a good practical knowledge in electronics or mechanics.
That is not necessarily the case at all however.

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

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 12:59:42 AM
PM,
Thank you.
Multiple batteries does not result in assumptions. Your point is not established. People can make assumptions about anything, but that doesn't make the thing improper. You have proved too much and therefore prove nothing by just repeating this claim.
Listen to me people, I am not saying that people shouldn't do a self-loop. That is fine. Do it. Feel it. Live it. Don't talk about it. Just do it! Wow that probably came from a Nike commercial  ;) What I am saying is that doing that is not the only option. And you should not disregard anything else. Read what I just wrote before this post. I will also add to that:

1. Some gains are happening in the battery itself (in the battery systems) so that it becomes rather involved to try and shuffle around energy from one battery to the other. It is far easier to rotate batteries. Now I haven't heard any of you reject battery rotation as a means of self-looping, so then this is what I have done for 15 years now.

2. But again, I am also saying that the OU can be in another form of energy that does not go back to the input.

3. Or it could be less than that which could sustain rotation. For example, I run a motor to do real work that I need done (Fan), while I power another load (electrical or otherwise). Any extra output is OU even if I don't loop it around to the front. What if it is only a percentage. Is that under unity because it is not self-sustaining? All you have to do is show that the motor is running the same way as before you harvested the reactive loop for additional outputs.

And then there was silence once again on OU.com as no one wants to admit these simple facts!

Consider now your words with my point you guys ignore:
"If you truly are producing OU, then your device should be able to" produce more output than is supposedly possible in the reactive loops.  "If not, then it is not OU.  It really is that simple because then nothing then depends on analysis, only the results."

RF,
Respectively, you are correct.  The test I proposed does cross a line and a very important one at that!  It is the line of TRUE OU.  On one side we have everything that is conservative that is, COP<1 and on the other side is the undeniable proof of COP>1.
When you incorporate multiple batteries in your work, this opens up the possibility of many incorrect assumptions and calculations to appear and thus raises question of the validity of any OU claims made.
If you truly are producing OU, then your device should be able to bootstrap charge a battery or capacitor totally by itself.  If not, then it is not OU.  It really is that simple because then nothing then depends on analysis, only the results.
Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 01:37:57 AM
Well that's a good start. Like I said, I'll be posting a new website shortly that will go over a lot of things.
The problem is that you guys are set in your ways in several things. I have burst some of those bubbles but it may take a few more days to sink in. What I am trying to do is get you to take the first steps. The first step would be to tell us what you already know about OU. Why not tell us why you are hear, I mean why you suppose OU is worthy of investigation. I always start off my meetings with such introductions. Then I can try and help people from where they actually are. Here we have a Ham guy. Over there an EE. A physicist sitting there. What's your experience? OK, we don't need to cover some things because you all know such already. But since you wanted to learn this, I'll see how we can adapt the study around that. That's kind of what happens. So tell us exactly what reasons you have for believing or not believing in OU, or why you think it is probably or possibly true. What is your context?

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

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

Thanks again Rick for your detailed reply. However, it has not really explained how, that if I was a student of yours, how you could satisfy me that a given system of yours was running OU, given battery vagaries we have discussed. As an example, take a multiple coil and LED system like demonstrated in the video you posted and assume that I just want to experience an OU demo from you as my tutor. Also, assume that I'm not a complete rookie and that I have a good conventional grounding in electrical principles and measurement. Take me through the stages you would take to demonstrate an OU system to me at the bench so to speak, not by video.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on July 13, 2019, 01:39:02 AM
Hi Rick,
I have a question about series impedance in pulsemotor setups and would be very happy, if you can give me a tip what I can do. My situation is, that I was able to replicate the zero voltage process, that my Voltage on the source battery stands still a long time, and my motor runs the hole time and Lights were on. No doubt, I know it works. It was simply trail end error with different impedance, and after a lot of hours I had it. After that I was switching complete to the resonance kit and never tried the zero voltage process on pulsemotor setups again.
In the last two days it was my goal, to do it again with different small fans and bedini style motors from old days and also transformers and coils from scrap, but I struggled more then I was exepted. I had some outputs and LEDs for free, but didn't find the perfect matching anymore. Had tried to use one of the free outputs (secondary transfomer side) to loop back via rectifier to the source battery, but in my understanding it is not the right way.
My Question is: is there some tricks, that helps to find a good impedance matching. In resonance kit it is no problem for my, to get many outputs for free. You showed the tuning via variac, so I had tried small variable transformers from model railways. It helps but was not the best for my small Fans. 
Some things I have also tried:
- Tryed to reach Zero Voltage over the loads (AC and DC). I know this is only a indication that should help, not exact measurement.
- Added the biggest Transformers with large Wire diameter first, then the other Transformers that had -for example- higher Coil resistance.
- Added one transformer and matched it best I can, then I moved to the next one and also tryed to tune it.
- Used big 110AH Battery on the end.
- Used small 7Ah as Source.
- I used good low resistance labratory cables to connect everything.
- Tryed to add capacitors on every impedance that matches the frequency of the negative pulse (I used online calculator).
- If neon bulb (protection over transistor, I don't know the exact word for that) lits to much, I removed the last added impedance or tried to tune it better with capacitor in parallel.

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

Thanks a lot for all your posts, Videos and comments Rick !!!! .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 02:03:11 AM
Void,
If anyone is to make any OU rules don't you think that it should be those who have actual experience with OU???

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

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

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

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

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

Lead acid batteries in good condition are generally taken to have a charge and discharge efficiency of roughly around 85%, but could be as low as 50% efficiency or possibly even lower depending on the exact Lead Acid battery type and the battery condition. However, if a claimed OU circuit setup has a COP of say >= 2, then you should be able to self-loop and completely do away with any battery at the input. You may be able to do that with an even lower COP. If the battery is claimed to be an essential part of the OU setup, then you should still be able to self-loop as long as you leave the circuit running in self-looped mode for a reasonable length of time in comparison to the battery capacity.

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

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


Is that too honest? :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 02:11:59 AM
First law of 'Void' presumption:
If you haven't made a self-looping argument for a reasonable length of time (depends total power consumption), then you are not in any sort of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP (i.e., the supposition of COP > 1).

Second law of 'Void' presumption:
If a person refuses to make self-loop arguments which should be quite straightforward and easy to do in most cases, then chances are very high they are just blowing smoke. 

Third Law of 'Void' presumption:
Ignore the above two laws at your own peril. Void presumption is folly.

For anyone who cares at all about reality, here is a recap of the essentials in OU circuit testing.
These laws were derived from many years of practical experience and have been proven many times over to be true and immutable laws.
First law of 'over unity' circuit testing:
If you haven't tested your circuit arrangement using a self-looping arrangement and left it to run for a reasonable length of time (depends on power source being used and total power consumption), then you are not in any sort of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP (i.e., the supposition of COP > 1).
Second law of 'over unity' circuit testing:
If a person refuses to put in an effort to self-loop a circuit setup under test in a reasonable way, which they are claiming is OU,
which should be quite straightforward and easy to do in most cases, then chances are very high they are just blowing smoke. 

Third Law of 'over unity' circuit testing:
Ignore the above two laws at your own peril. All else is folly.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 02:22:31 AM
Void,
You walked right into that last post. And did you say below that you "have an open mind"  ;D

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

I for one would love to see a reasonable demonstration of 'cold electricity' or 'negative electricity'.
I can't say I have ever seen a demonstration of such concepts which looks reasonable to me, but I have an open mind. Nothing would be more cool (no pun intended) than to be able to power a load without depleting the power source and while the circuitry and load remains cold or gets colder or forms frost as the circuit operates, and I am not talking about a refrigeration type circuit.  ;-)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 02:47:02 AM
Well, my grandpa used to say we'll have to hang you upside down and pluck you like a chicken.

I beg to differ. I have listened to everyone's points and answered each one of them. How could I not be listening if I responded to everything. The problem is that you are not responding to anything I have written along these lines. Any several of you have said you don't read what I write so how do you know I am not agreeing with you even?

 You are indeed wasting your time because you just repeat the same sort of thing without any actual reason. Like I said, you are Void presumption. All you can do is make circle arguments without any actual evidence or proof for your pontifications.

I'm not sure where you have been all these years when I have made more public demonstrations than anyone.

Even your new demand below also is not self-evident. Explain to us just why a person who has something unusual should be able to demonstrate it in a reasonable and clear and concise way? Especially in the context of doing that through the internet. And having something unusual doesn't mean that everyone will agree with what would be a reasonable, clear and concise demonstration. Remember your void presumption self-loop circle reasoning, self-defeating expectations would not even allow for a 30KW demonstration if it was powered by 30W and not closed-looped. Do you now finally get your mistake here? Do you really want me to keep going like this as it will only be more embarrassing for you.

You see, I did that video to prove this mistake and draw you all to this place here. I made provided just enough output load for people to rationally conclude at the meeting that it was OU. And I showed the video in a way with just enough loads that people who were open and believed that videos can prove OU would believe that. And people who didn't want to believe it would then say it was not enough of a demonstration. Others who saw that the loads were more than the input, but who just couldn't believe it for whatever reason, assumed it was faked with wires under the table. So now we can see all the responses since that picture and video was posted. We have seen people reluctantly somewhat agree that videos can prove nothing about OU or against OU. But now we see this almost tirade of Void presumption in saying that it doesn't matter how much output you have, as long as it is not self-looped it means nothing and cannot be OU. SAYS WHO???

So let me once more turn your own folly upon itself:
"If a person really has something true to say, they should be able to demonstrate it in a reasonable and clear and concise way." But with you there is only a Void!

Rick, Rick, Rick... What are we going to do with you amigo? ;)
You refuse to listen to reason. :)
Let me try saying it in a different way, but I know I am probably wasting my time:
If a person really has something unusual, they should be able to demonstrate it in a reasonable
and clear and concise way.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 03:00:21 AM
Obviously such people realized that your Void presumptions were nonsense. Because obviously OU is more than just self-looping. What if people want another form of output? What if I have a primary OU system that is powering another that is not self-looped because it doesn't need to be in that case and which is producing another useful form of energy? Is this not OU? You are just rambling nonsense because you have no experience in these things and real-world systems. I talk to engineers and people at the cutting edge of technology all around the world about all forms of energy production and trying to help solve existing problems. There are so many situations that do not require self-looping and yet are OU in fact. So this is just foolish. What if people only need hybrid systems where they already have continuous but limited power source and just need an amplification while needing a motor to run as well? Anyway, your are just trying to limit reality and control what people think and do. You are taking this forum far to seriously. It is just a bunch of guys trading ideas. You are making it out to be something way more. If you wasted time on someone's claim that is your fault and not some person making a claim. The problem is not what is not shown but the problem I have been putting my finger on, PRESUMPTION, ASSUMPTION, PREJUDICE. Why don't you peach against that? It is because you live by that. Spend your time telling people not to believe claims for or against OU. Don't tell us how to be Void and presumptuous like this.

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

Dr. Stiffler made a very obvious mistake in his approach. He ignored the first and second laws
of 'over unity' testing as outlined above, and in my opinion he lead himself and others down the garden path. He could have easily avoided doing that and saved himself and various other experimenters a lot of wasted time and effort if he had simply heeded the first and second laws of 'over unity' circuit testing. A self-looped arrangement would have quickly shown that his circuit arrangements were not capable of self-sustaining, and therefore probably not showing a COP >1.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 13, 2019, 03:13:24 AM
I just asked one question.

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


Is this system OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c)
Hi Tinsel  good to see you here . Makes a change from reading your posts (correctly) dissing the Earth engine fiasco on Disqus.
https://disqus.com/by/disqus_ztbFmjSU6Q/ (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_ztbFmjSU6Q/)


So I have a question for you....
Remember that "special" circuit I sent you - a number of years ago.
You know...  the one which downed your cctv system and which downed my internet.


Why haven't you done a video on THAT.


I know why...and so do you.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 03:28:39 AM
Hey B,
This is good to hear. As for your situation there are a thousands things I could say. This is probably best to call me up so we can go back and forth on the details. The first thing probably is to go back to what you had initially and make careful observations. The second thing to consider is that the old setups could have partially damaged transistors. I have almost certainty that many people who got poor results had such because they had that. It is easy to forget to hook the charging battery. And the switching can still work but it is now possibly damaged. Or some experiment was done it was damaged. I have worked with many people only to find that was the case. Because almost everyone thinks everything is ok unless it is a full smoked transistor. The next thing is to realize that the trigger coil setups were problematic in that the impedance keeps changing with batteries. So unless you get things right on as in the video it will wander off (as you can see when the second 100W was added input battery voltage went up and he had to adjust the pot slightly).

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks a lot for all your posts, Videos and comments Rick !!!! .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2019, 04:04:34 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.
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.
Hi Tinsel  good to see you here . Makes a change from reading your posts (correctly) dissing the Earth engine fiasco on Disqus.
https://disqus.com/by/disqus_ztbFmjSU6Q/ (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_ztbFmjSU6Q/)

So I have a question for you....
Remember that "special" circuit I sent you - a number of years ago.
You know...  the one which downed your cctv system and which downed my internet.

Why haven't you done a video on THAT.

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


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 13, 2019, 04:43:18 AM
No, actually I have no idea what circuit you are talking about. Messed up my cctv? Sorry, I can't recall. Can you give me more details?Just about any High Voltage E-field emitter will do that though, with these crappy unshielded USB extension cables. I can whip up something for you in a few minutes if you really need a CCTV/WIFI disruptor.  I have lots of devices I don't dare operate inside the house, the EEEE being one of them. Yes, it is still in the wings waiting for the right time to debut.
It was the circuit from the Ukrainian Government's Agricultural institute based in Kiev. It was a replication of only a part of a Don Smith circuit.  It kept blowing bulbs and they concluded that this required further study.  It was performed by a PHD student for his exams and supervised by the appropriate professor.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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 ! )
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie 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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich 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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich 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 ! )
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg 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     
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy 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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich 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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich 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   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun 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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ 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...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich 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 (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. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 13, 2019, 11:39:38 PM

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.
Rick,
So, maybe at last the penny is finally dropping for you.  ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 13, 2019, 11:50:55 PM
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.  ;D 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. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 12:04:16 AM
Yes, I was just mentioning that. It is easier than self-looping as the batteries are electrically connected so looping needs additional processes.
And you can also do this with what I call my third stage process in the Loving Paths teaching. Ideally you can make the motor a prime mover and run loads like motors off of each negative impedance in a series chain. But then you can go out from there again and again just like a) in figure 5 in True Wireless as I mentioned. I did show that at a Goshen Indiana meeting 3 or so years ago. Not endlessly but with several motors, after properly inverting them...

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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 12:21:57 AM
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.  ;D 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...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 14, 2019, 12:32:34 AM
   Is there any of my questions that you can answer???   We are not asking for you to show us brushing your teeth.
   We are asking for you to measure the output current. Is that so hard?  Not just more excuses for not doing so.   We are all holding our breath....   Glad that you like my humor. But, I'm starting to turn blue.
    I was not talking about noisy impulse motors or fan builds. Not not here for that.
   NickZ

   
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 14, 2019, 12:52:42 AM
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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 14, 2019, 12:53:43 AM
Itsu,
Nice test and presentation  !
The power factor now as best, about = 0.3
And the forty BATs are "eating" some mWatts also.
( 8 coils ==> 204 mW)

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 01:23:57 AM
@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?     ;)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 01:32:20 AM
Yes, I was just mentioning that. It is easier than self-looping as the batteries are electrically connected so looping needs additional processes.
And you can also do this with what I call my third stage process in the Loving Paths teaching. Ideally you can make the motor a prime mover and run loads like motors off of each negative impedance in a series chain. But then you can go out from there again and again just like a) in figure 5 in True Wireless as I mentioned. I did show that at a Goshen Indiana meeting 3 or so years ago. Not endlessly but with several motors, after properly inverting them...
Why not endlessly, if it is truly OU?
Perhaps we have different definitions of terms. To me, OU (overunity) in this context means that a device, over a suitable time interval, produces more energy measured in Joules at its output, than it takes energy in Joules to run it at the input.
Joules out > Joules in, that is what I and I think most others would consider OU.

What say you to this, and please try to not turn it into another wall of text.

 We measure energy in Joules, we measure real power in Watts (Joules per Second), we measure reactive power in VARs, we measure current in Amperes and voltage in Volts. Or their powers of ten, like kilovolts, etc.
And energy is the ability to perform work, and work is force times distance, and so on, common engineering and physics definitions, no wordplay or "alternative facts".

Right? Can we agree on some common terms here?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 02:15:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 14, 2019, 02:41:06 AM
Hi Tinselkoala

Is this coming down to real power versus apparent power or is that not where you are going with these questions, just wondering thanks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 02:55:52 AM
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...     
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 03:01:40 AM
If you are asking for proof you can only see that in the real world. Is that so hard? And why is a fan so uninteresting. It is the most basic thing that instantly proves OU. I suspect it is because you don't want to believe this.
I still haven't finished editing that long video because of all these posts.

   Is there any of my questions that you can answer???   We are not asking for you to show us brushing your teeth.
   We are asking for you to measure the output current. Is that so hard?  Not just more excuses for not doing so.   We are all holding our breath....   Glad that you like my humor. But, I'm starting to turn blue.
    I was not talking about noisy impulse motors or fan builds. Not not here for that.
   NickZ

   
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 03:16:25 AM
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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 03:19:18 AM
T,
I shared that already. One of my students has a video showing that with the kit a year ago.

@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?     ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 03:33:32 AM
T,
No reason to insult here. No one is forcing you to read. If you want details you can read them. If you want ambiguity then insist on few words.
Here is an example of ambiguity. When I said endlessly, I meant endless motors added. That is the context of what you said, replicate the output again and again. I was saying I showed that with several motors in a chain.
As for your school lesson with words, not all places in an OU system will show power measurements. The only place it will show it is when you are using a closed loop that destroys the source charge. So you can do that after a process when you are looping a regular load, but not all loads will show power measurements either. I don't know about your experience with OU, but it appears you may not agree with this. I don't really care about what the physics books say these days. I agree with Walter Lewin that all the college level text are wrong. So if you want to talk about higher level physics then that is fine. Here is some light reading for you to consider along those lines:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9812779965/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

Why not endlessly, if it is truly OU?
Perhaps we have different definitions of terms. To me, OU (overunity) in this context means that a device, over a suitable time interval, produces more energy measured in Joules at its output, than it takes energy in Joules to run it at the input.
Joules out > Joules in, that is what I and I think most others would consider OU.

What say you to this, and please try to not turn it into another wall of text.

 We measure energy in Joules, we measure real power in Watts (Joules per Second), we measure reactive power in VARs, we measure current in Amperes and voltage in Volts. Or their powers of ten, like kilovolts, etc.
And energy is the ability to perform work, and work is force times distance, and so on, common engineering and physics definitions, no wordplay or "alternative facts".

Right? Can we agree on some common terms here?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 03:58:33 AM
T,
You are a little presumptuous here. I have been engaged with many of these gentlemen  ;) here for about a month and have ongoing things we have been working out or otherwise. You just jumped in here and put up some video links expecting some response from me. I don't know you or how relevant your videos are. I have been busy with these guys and our talk. You are jumping in here expecting me to focus on it and frankly I have just not had the time yet. I barely watched the one and would need to carefully watch it again and think about what you are really wanting with all this. But by reacting this way it is not inviting. The other guys who posted videos have had the patience to let people get to them. There has been a flood of posts that have been more pressing that you jumping in here and say look over here.

As for what kind of OU, I have mentioned several. I will be doing a big presentation when I get the time for that which should help.

I appreciate the invitation and will get to it when I get some time. So rather than spending time to search for these video links again, I'll respond to your below point.

There isn't a lot of talk about J and W and are you trying to be insulting here?

As for the hypo, I guess it depends on if you are making a trick question. It appears you are looking for a setup or you are just telling me about some OU system.
Some of the statements are ambiguous. What is the load. You say compatible. That doesn't tell me if it has a low voltage cut off. If this is a trick question then I would say the battery half discharges because the load has a cut off voltage. This is compatible with the battery and: "run the load until the battery is so depleted that the load does not run any more at all". So then you connect the battery to a buckboost in the box and discharge the battery down all the way until it fully discharges. You never said the battery was fully discharged the first run, just till the load stops. So that is most likely what you are doing because no OU system would do this sort of thing. I mean, if you really depleted the battery all the way to zero then why would an OU system in the box run at first but not for good.

So it appears to be just a voltage drop situation with some kind of boost situation.

Do I win the prize?

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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 04:36:14 AM
T,
No reason to insult here. No one is forcing you to read. If you want details you can read them. If you want ambiguity then insist on few words.
That is what I wanted when I asked you not to post Yet Another wall of text without actually answering a question.
Quote
Here is an example of ambiguity. When I said endlessly, I meant endless motors added. That is the context of what you said, replicate the output again and again. I was saying I showed that with several motors in a chain.
And that is what I meant too. Why not endlessly? Why did you not simply go on connecting motor after motor, with a little bit of extra load at each stage? It is because your system does not actually output more energy in Joules than it takes to run it, stage by stage, and you will eventually reach a stage where an additional motor will not run. And this will be sooner rather than later.
Quote
As for your school lesson with words, not all places in an OU system will show power measurements. The only place it will show it is when you are using a closed loop that destroys the source charge. So you can do that after a process when you are looping a regular load, but not all loads will show power measurements either.
Any system can have its input energy measured in Joules. Any system can have its output energy measured in Joules. This is true whether it is "self looped", Daisy chained, or just sitting there running itself. Your statement above makes no real sense. Do you even understand how to make proper power measurements? If so, this knowledge is not in evidence in your posts or videos.
Quote
I don't know about your experience with OU, but it appears you may not agree with this. I don't really care about what the physics books say these days. I agree with Walter Lewin that all the college level text are wrong. So if you want to talk about higher level physics then that is fine. Here is some light reading for you to consider along those lines:https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9812779965/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9812779965/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1)
And that pretty much says it all. No need to give answers to questions, no common definitions of what OU actually means, no need to do proper measurements of silly quantities like Joules and Watts,  some incoherent gobbledegook that someone with no electrical engineering experience might pretend to understand... and all those college level texts that trained the engineers who made your computer and more importantly who made the tools to make your computer -- all wrong. And you, on the other hand, are all right.






Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 04:44:47 AM
T,
You are a little presumptuous here. I have been engaged with many of these gentlemen  ;) here for about a month and have ongoing things we have been working out or otherwise.
And all of those gentlemen know me and understand what I am saying and doing.
Quote
You just jumped in here and put up some video links expecting some response from me. I don't know you or how relevant your videos are. I have been busy with these guys and our talk. You are jumping in here expecting me to focus on it and frankly I have just not had the time yet. I barely watched the one and would need to carefully watch it again and think about what you are really wanting with all this.
But you expect people to read your walls of text and watch your interminable videos, even though your rate of disseminating true information is very low. Obviously, your cup is so full that any additional info will overflow and be lost.
Quote
But by reacting this way it is not inviting. The other guys who posted videos have had the patience to let people get to them. There has been a flood of posts that have been more pressing that you jumping in here and say look over here.
As for what kind of OU, I have mentioned several. I will be doing a big presentation when I get the time for that which should help.
But the "several" kinds of OU you have mentioned do not correspond to Joules in < Joules out, which is the only kind that actually matters.  And all I did with my videos is to ask you one question: OU, or not, according to YOUR definition. But you won't even do that much.
Quote
I appreciate the invitation and will get to it when I get some time. So rather than spending time to search for these video links again, I'll respond to your below point.

There isn't a lot of talk about J and W and are you trying to be insulting here?
No, I am just trying to see if we speak the same language. I think the chances are slim, but I'm willing to give you an opportunity to prove me wrong.
Quote

As for the hypo, I guess it depends on if you are making a trick question. It appears you are looking for a setup or you are just telling me about some OU system.
Some of the statements are ambiguous. What is the load. You say compatible. That doesn't tell me if it has a low voltage cut off. If this is a trick question then I would say the battery half discharges because the load has a cut off voltage. This is compatible with the battery and: "run the load until the battery is so depleted that the load does not run any more at all". So then you connect the battery to a buckboost in the box and discharge the battery down all the way until it fully discharges. You never said the battery was fully discharged the first run, just till the load stops. So that is most likely what you are doing because no OU system would do this sort of thing. I mean, if you really depleted the battery all the way to zero then why would an OU system in the box run at first but not for good.

So it appears to be just a voltage drop situation with some kind of boost situation.

Do I win the prize?
It seems to me that you have described rather exactly all of the "self sustaining" systems that you have ever offered.

 For example the Clarendon Dry Pile has been ringing its little bell since 1840 with few interruptions. But none of your self sustaining systems actually self sustain. They all eventually stop, and when the battery is examined it is found to be drained, so "something went wrong" even though the system is clearly OU. Right?

Please correct me if I am wrong and point me to a demonstration of one of your self sustaining systems that is still running continously after... well we don't need to do it for a hundred and seventy eight years. Just a couple of months should be enough.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 04:53:17 AM


Re the capabilities of the IXDD mosfet driver:
T,
I shared that already. One of my students has a video showing that with the kit a year ago.
Why, then, do you now bother with the Function Generator at all?

Let me check my records to see when I demonstrated this kind of self-resonant wireless power transmitter using e-field feedback, and lighting incandescent bulbs with the wirelessly received output.  Oh... has it been that long already? June of 2017. That's over two years ago.
And using EM feedback and a phase-locked loop to maintain locked in resonance ... that was way back in 2015. SO maybe your students are paying more attention than you are!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 04:57:55 AM
Hi Tinselkoala

Is this coming down to real power versus apparent power or is that not where you are going with these questions, just wondering thanks.
Not necessarily. It's part of it by necessity, but right now I am realizing that there actually aren't any good measurements of anything, nor any hard definitions of what RF considers OU,  so it's hard to know what's relevant and what's not.

Certainly how he brushes his teeth isn't relevant, unless he uses an OU toothbrush. (Charge the batteries in an electric toothbrush using an overunity battery charger.... ??)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 05:04:24 AM
G,
(snip)
Power is not = to energy.(snip)
RIGHT !!
Quote
(snip)
Voltage is energy.(snip)
WRONG !!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 14, 2019, 05:08:06 AM
Hi Tinselkoala

You just got me laughing thinking there might be mercury in his fillings and no Rick this is not a slight on you just a funny thought that came into my mind while reading these posts and I thought I would share.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 05:19:06 AM
T,
Now I see your deceit. Just another TROLL not even hiding your intentions. Well I'll give you a few responses then goodbye.
A moment ago you didn't even know what was going on on this thread. But suddenly you have it all figured out do you. Yeah, well everyone can see who you are.
You ask a question but you just want a short reply to use against people. That's your game.
Well when I showed the motors I used the ones I had. It was as simple as that. But I don't need motors as I did that with all the transformers and inductors in my shop once.
You don't know anything I do so why are you here Troll?
No, I can always put a battery on the back of the final motor and rotate them around as we have done for 15 years now. And that is the basic level.
I have a battery charger business so I know a little about power measurements.
Why don't you just go back to high school and play with basic electronics. Leave OU for the big boys.  ;D
Yes, all the college texts are wrong. Did I say everything about them is wrong? No. Most of the pages are true. I'm talking about a specific thing here.
Anyway, it is obvious you do not believe in OU so why would you be here?
Yeah I'm alright, just fine thank you. I don't think you are. Can you show us something useful or are you just filling up walls of text?

That is what I wanted when I asked you not to post Yet Another wall of text without actually answering a question.And that is what I meant too. Why not endlessly? Why did you not simply go on connecting motor after motor, with a little bit of extra load at each stage? It is because your system does not actually output more energy in Joules than it takes to run it, stage by stage, and you will eventually reach a stage where an additional motor will not run. And this will be sooner rather than later.Any system can have its input energy measured in Joules. Any system can have its output energy measured in Joules. This is true whether it is "self looped", Daisy chained, or just sitting there running itself. Your statement above makes no real sense. Do you even understand how to make proper power measurements? If so, this knowledge is not in evidence in your posts or videos.And that pretty much says it all. No need to give answers to questions, no common definitions of what OU actually means, no need to do proper measurements of silly quantities like Joules and Watts,  some incoherent gobbledegook that someone with no electrical engineering experience might pretend to understand... and all those college level texts that trained the engineers who made your computer and more importantly who made the tools to make your computer -- all wrong. And you, on the other hand, are all right.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 05:32:12 AM
T,
No wonder they kicked you out of the other forum what are you but a parrot citing high school  chapter 1 basic electronics? So what are you the cleanup crew here when all else fails?

Not sure where you get your information from, but you are talking about someone else. You can make up anything you want, I doubt anyone is going to pay attention to you anymore. I think you were outed as Troll long ago. You made it a little too obvious. Next time milk out the introductions a little longer and someone might fall for your game.

Well, I'm actually 150 years old and have been running Cook's patent process all this time, from when I was a few years old. It's still going man. Come on over and check it out! You wouldn't even believe a solar panel would give you any gains. Probably wouldn't even bother to hook it up because you may not believe that they can give you free energy. Where's the Joules coming from T? Can you measure watts going into the panels? Must be a false claim.

Why would anyone tell you anything if you just vomit out your insults?

And all of those gentlemen know me and understand what I am saying and doing.But you expect people to read your walls of text and watch your interminable videos, even though your rate of disseminating true information is very low. Obviously, your cup is so full that any additional info will overflow and be lost.But the "several" kinds of OU you have mentioned do not correspond to Joules in < Joules out, which is the only kind that actually matters.  And all I did with my videos is to ask you one question: OU, or not, according to YOUR definition. But you won't even do that much.No, I am just trying to see if we speak the same language. I think the chances are slim, but I'm willing to give you an opportunity to prove me wrong. It seems to me that you have described rather exactly all of the "self sustaining" systems that you have ever offered.

 For example the Clarendon Dry Pile has been ringing its little bell since 1840 with few interruptions. But none of your self sustaining systems actually self sustain. They all eventually stop, and when the battery is examined it is found to be drained, so "something went wrong" even though the system is clearly OU. Right?

Please correct me if I am wrong and point me to a demonstration of one of your self sustaining systems that is still running continously after... well we don't need to do it for a hundred and seventy eight years. Just a couple of months should be enough.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 05:32:50 AM
And here we see just what you are. You cannot answer reasonable questions from me or from anyone else. You become insanely defensive when someone challenges you on your easily refutable claims and muddled definitions of words. You are living off of profits made from selling toys to gullible people. And if you really had the OU that you claim, things would be very different for you and for this world.
I don't care what you call me. Believe me, I've been called worse, by better men than you. What hasn't happened yet is for me to be proven wrong. And you sure aren't going to do it. Your systems cannot meet this simple, well accepted OU criterion: total Joules in < total Joules out.
Go ahead, PROVE ME WRONG! You won't, because you can't.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 05:35:29 AM
T,
No wonder they kicked you out of the other forum what are you but a parrot citing high school  chapter 1 basic electronics? So what are you the cleanup crew here when all else fails?
The only forum I have ever been "kicked out" from is Aaron's Energetic Forum, where I was kicked out for being RIGHT about Rosemary Ainsley.  And the electronics I cite actually works and does what it says on the tin. Yours? Not so much.

Quote

Not sure where you get your information from, but you are talking about someone else. You can make up anything you want, I doubt anyone is going to pay attention to you anymore. I think you were outed as Troll long ago. You made it a little too obvious. Next time milk out the introductions a little longer and someone might fall for your game.

Well, I'm actually 150 years old and have been running Cook's patent process all this time, from when I was a few years old. It's still going man. Come on over and check it out! You wouldn't even believe a solar panel would give you any gains. Probably wouldn't even bother to hook it up because you may not believe that they can give you free energy. Where's the Joules coming from T? Can you measure watts going into the panels? Must be a false claim.

Why would anyone tell you anything if you just vomit out your insults?
Hah hah very funny. NOT. You cannot refute me, so you resort to this kind of childish ranting.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 05:37:42 AM
T,
No wonder they kicked you out of the other forum what are you but a parrot citing high school  chapter 1 basic electronics? So what are you the cleanup crew here when all else fails?

Not sure where you get your information from, but you are talking about someone else. You can make up anything you want, I doubt anyone is going to pay attention to you anymore. I think you were outed as Troll long ago. You made it a little too obvious. Next time milk out the introductions a little longer and someone might fall for your game.

Well, I'm actually 150 years old and have been running Cook's patent process all this time, from when I was a few years old. It's still going man. Come on over and check it out! You wouldn't even believe a solar panel would give you any gains. Probably wouldn't even bother to hook it up because you may not believe that they can give you free energy. Where's the Joules coming from T? Can you measure watts going into the panels? Must be a false claim.

Why would anyone tell you anything if you just vomit out your insults?
You might not be able to measure a solar panel's input and output energy, but I certainly can. And no, a solar panel is not free energy, in fact they aren't even very efficient yet.  Keep digging, there's plenty of room at the bottom.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 05:43:09 AM
I personally don't. I made a kit to help people learn resonance and the basics. FG is optional.

Wow, you are old man! Shall we call you Master T? I actually made that kit around that month of that year. Must have learned it from you. That's it. Didn't you invent it? Well I'm glad you can add, I was beginning to wonder if you had advanced that far  :o Yep, 2017 plus 2018 is one year and 2019 would be 2 years.
phase-locked loop is public knowledge at least 30 years ago. I'm glad you recently learned about it. Seriously it is good to use.
Yep leaning from my students every day. Maybe I could learn from you? Learn what not to do.
So are you boasting that you have figured something out or are you just mocking any OU system? Your game is so off I'm not sure if you even know the right script you were given for this thread as it appears you mixing up two of them. You should go back and get better instructions because it is not going very well for you at this point.


Re the capabilities of the IXDD mosfet driver:Why, then, do you now bother with the Function Generator at all?
Let me check my records to see when I demonstrated this kind of self-resonant wireless power transmitter using e-field feedback, and lighting incandescent bulbs with the wirelessly received output.  Oh... has it been that long already? June of 2017. That's over two years ago.
And using EM feedback and a phase-locked loop to maintain locked in resonance ... that was way back in 2015. SO maybe your students are paying more attention than you are!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 05:48:24 AM
T,
Now I see your deceit. Just another TROLL not even hiding your intentions. Well I'll give you a few responses then goodbye.
A moment ago you didn't even know what was going on on this thread. But suddenly you have it all figured out do you. Yeah, well everyone can see who you are.
You ask a question but you just want a short reply to use against people. That's your game.
Well when I showed the motors I used the ones I had. It was as simple as that. But I don't need motors as I did that with all the transformers and inductors in my shop once.
You don't know anything I do so why are you here Troll?
No, I can always put a battery on the back of the final motor and rotate them around as we have done for 15 years now. And that is the basic level.
I have a battery charger business so I know a little about power measurements.
Why don't you just go back to high school and play with basic electronics. Leave OU for the big boys.  ;D
Yes, all the college texts are wrong. Did I say everything about them is wrong? No. Most of the pages are true. I'm talking about a specific thing here.
Anyway, it is obvious you do not believe in OU so why would you be here?
Yeah I'm alright, just fine thank you. I don't think you are. Can you show us something useful or are you just filling up walls of text?
You have no self-sustaining systems, just as I have said. You can play battery merry-go-round long enough for the rubes to lose interest but your batteries will all eventually die and die hard. And you even know this is true!
You want to talk about deceit? Point out anything in my work that is deceitful, and tell what the truth is. And we will do the same for you. For example, your system is not OU at all, in fact it isn't even very efficient at transferring power, and everybody who has built and tested it knows this is true.
You clearly do not know anything about me or my beliefs. What I believe in is the TRUTH, and when I see people who lie and make claims they cannot support with facts, outside references and demonstrations of their own, especially in a field that I am familiar with,  I am motivated to say something about it. Suddenly figured it out? You literally make me laugh out loud.

Suffice it to say that your demonstrations and your kits and your battery charger merrygorounds are not sufficient to support your claims of OU, and your avoidance of discussing definitions and terms and quantities -- not to mention the freshman errors -- lead me to conclude that you actually don't know what the flmp you are talking about, AND/OR you really do have such contempt for your audience that you expect them to believe in invisible pink unicorns without even showing them a picture.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 05:52:22 AM
I personally don't. I made a kit to help people learn resonance and the basics. FG is optional.

Wow, you are old man! Shall we call you Master T? I actually made that kit around that month of that year. Must have learned it from you. That's it. Didn't you invent it? Well I'm glad you can add, I was beginning to wonder if you had advanced that far  :o Yep, 2017 plus 2018 is one year and 2019 would be 2 years.
phase-locked loop is public knowledge at least 30 years ago. I'm glad you recently learned about it. Seriously it is good to use.
Yep leaning from my students every day. Maybe I could learn from you? Learn what not to do.
So are you boasting that you have figured something out or are you just mocking any OU system? Your game is so off I'm not sure if you even know the right script you were given for this thread as it appears you mixing up two of them. You should go back and get better instructions because it is not going very well for you at this point.
Ha ha ha. You stated that your student used some aspect of the mosfet driver a year ago, and I pointed out that I posted a video with such a system two years ago. From that you conclude that I ''recently learned" about it? When you had to learn about it from your student a year later? LOL. And you still aren't using a PLL, even though you say "seriously it is good to use"?You are really grasping at straws to try to keep up your insults against me. But the important thing is still missing. Did you notice?YOU HAVE NOT, and CANNOT, refute me.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 05:56:04 AM
You can't prove anything to the incredulous. Look I've seen your type for many years. You don't even know what you are talking about. We can create all the J you want. You never even read what I wrote. I said that in certain places in a real OU system you have no power measurements, or they will not add up. But I didn't say that you could not have more J out than in. You can charge up a cap and run it across a resistor load like Itsu is trying to do. You can have your J in the input side, and you can have your regular loads in the primary loop, and then you can have your additional loads on the secondary loops. And you can place your meters across those loads and add up more J if you want to. That is all fine. All I was saying was that you could also do other things. But that is beyond your experience.

You are long proven wrong buddy. You do a fine job of doing that yourself.

And here we see just what you are. You cannot answer reasonable questions from me or from anyone else. You become insanely defensive when someone challenges you on your easily refutable claims and muddled definitions of words. You are living off of profits made from selling toys to gullible people. And if you really had the OU that you claim, things would be very different for you and for this world.
I don't care what you call me. Believe me, I've been called worse, by better men than you. What hasn't happened yet is for me to be proven wrong. And you sure aren't going to do it. Your systems cannot meet this simple, well accepted OU criterion: total Joules in < total Joules out.
Go ahead, PROVE ME WRONG! You won't, because you can't.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 06:06:40 AM
You act like you are something special. Why would anyone even bother looking at anything you do when all you do is vomit out circles of the same thing? Is that your truth? I guess you continue to prove your worth by how many times you repeat just how special you are. The truth is you know nothing about me and I really don't care to know anything about you. Just a TROLL sent in to fill the thread up with meaningless content. Bark bark bark bla bla bla

You have no self-sustaining systems, just as I have said. You can play battery merry-go-round long enough for the rubes to lose interest but your batteries will all eventually die and die hard. And you even know this is true!
You want to talk about deceit? Point out anything in my work that is deceitful, and tell what the truth is. And we will do the same for you. For example, your system is not OU at all, in fact it isn't even very efficient at transferring power, and everybody who has built and tested it knows this is true.
You clearly do not know anything about me or my beliefs. What I believe in is the TRUTH, and when I see people who lie and make claims they cannot support with facts, outside references and demonstrations of their own, especially in a field that I am familiar with,  I am motivated to say something about it. Suddenly figured it out? You literally make me laugh out loud.

Suffice it to say that your demonstrations and your kits and your battery charger merrygorounds are not sufficient to support your claims of OU, and your avoidance of discussing definitions and terms and quantities -- not to mention the freshman errors -- lead me to conclude that you actually don't know what the flmp you are talking about, AND/OR you really do have such contempt for your audience that you expect them to believe in invisible pink unicorns without even showing them a picture.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 06:11:20 AM
WOW! You are just brilliant. I guess whatever it takes to fill up this forum with circle nonsense. Right? That's the mission.
There is nothing to refute? I don't even know what you are claiming. It's just all verbal diarrhea. You are the master, you refute yourself. Like I said, you have two different scripts mixed up for this thread. You confused the two. You need to go back and get rechipped because your wires are crossed.

Ha ha ha. You stated that your student used some aspect of the mosfet driver a year ago, and I pointed out that I posted a video with such a system two years ago. From that you conclude that I ''recently learned" about it? When you had to learn about it from your student a year later? LOL. And you still aren't using a PLL, even though you say "seriously it is good to use"?You are really grasping at straws to try to keep up your insults against me. But the important thing is still missing. Did you notice?YOU HAVE NOT, and CANNOT, refute me.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 06:28:33 AM
Voltage = energy, does it?
So I have here a bunch of different capacitors, all charged to the same voltage. Therefore they all contain the same energy.

Right?

And the way you talk about "J"s measured here and there indicate once again that you either don't know what you are talking about or you seek deliberately to mislead your audience. Or maybe both.
Let's review. Everything I say and demonstrate here can be easily replicated by anyone with the skill to assemble some parts and the test equipment to measure it. This is not the case for what you are presenting. You are advertising OU, but you cannot demonstrate the kind of OU that means anything real, that is, Joules out > Joules in. In fact from your last post it seems that you don't even know what that actually means.
You are so tangled up that you won't even try to refute me, because you know you cannot. So you resort to your childish insults and deflections, and even outright lies that are easily disproved, like you were mocking Mylow, or that I was banned from forums.

The real electronics builders here and at OUR all seem to share the same opinion. It's not just me, it is nearly everyone who has actually shown working systems and analyzed various projects and demonstrated their competence with measurement and construction. We all know that you've got nothing but hot air, and you have no trouble proving that with your walls of text!

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 14, 2019, 07:11:39 AM
OOh the handbags are out ;D .  Anyhow Tinsel. Are you ready to discuss the circuit I have asked you about Sir? 8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 07:20:31 AM
One form of energy. Can you tell me what you think voltage is? And pulling out a voltmeter and turning it on is not telling me what it is. I don't care about definitions myself as I try and understand people's meaning even when they differ with me in words.

Well I was just told by one of the moderators that you were banned from their forum. Obviously not Aaron's as that would possibly be good.

So you really think that if you just say the same thing over and over that people are going to take you seriously? No matter how many times you say you have something doesn't make it true bud. No matter how many times you say the earth is flat it won't change the reality. You can say I have never flown in an airplane because you don't believe in human flight, and you can claim to have gone to the moon but no one thinks you are capable. Repeating that over and over doesn't convince anyone of that. There may be something really wrong with you. Are you seeking recognition, to be acknowledged? Everyone, pay attention. This Tinsel has something important to say. Nothing to show, just something to say. He has something. It really is just a whole lot of hot air.  ::)  But he wants you to know that he has something important to say about himself. Yep that he is important. And you can't refute that. He knows it even if nobody else does ;) We love you T. I hope you get some help. So far you have shared not one important thing in these hours you jumped in here. Only repeating the same thing over and over. You have not revealed anything but naming a few units of energy that you would find in a high school primary book. Oh, yeah, you gave a nice little trick that I figured out. I guess your videos are just that a trick. Some parts thrown together with some scribbled numbers on them to give appearance that you are special. Why would I bother watching another video when the first one really had little benefit. Come on Rick, don't think it was proof of anything, but what do you think it proved? I guess nothing. How a foolish person keeps drawing attention to himself and says that you can't disprove him doing that. That's how you come across man! That's what stands out. Behold the man! Look no further! That is worse than Bedini.

Voltage = energy, does it?
So I have here a bunch of different capacitors, all charged to the same voltage. Therefore they all contain the same energy.

Right?

And the way you talk about "J"s measured here and there indicate once again that you either don't know what you are talking about or you seek deliberately to mislead your audience. Or maybe both.
Let's review. Everything I say and demonstrate here can be easily replicated by anyone with the skill to assemble some parts and the test equipment to measure it. This is not the case for what you are presenting. You are advertising OU, but you cannot demonstrate the kind of OU that means anything real, that is, Joules out > Joules in. In fact from your last post it seems that you don't even know what that actually means.
You are so tangled up that you won't even try to refute me, because you know you cannot. So you resort to your childish insults and deflections, and even outright lies that are easily disproved, like you were mocking Mylow, or that I was banned from forums.

The real electronics builders here and at OUR all seem to share the same opinion. It's not just me, it is nearly everyone who has actually shown working systems and analyzed various projects and demonstrated their competence with measurement and construction. We all know that you've got nothing but hot air, and you have no trouble proving that with your walls of text!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 07:27:27 AM
OOh the handbags are out ;D .  Anyhow Tinsel. Are you ready to discuss the circuit I have asked you about Sir? 8)
Here's what I said when you first brought it up:
Quote
No, actually I have no idea what circuit you are talking about. Messed up my cctv? Sorry, I can't recall. Can you give me more details?Just about any High Voltage E-field emitter will do that though, with these crappy unshielded USB extension cables. I can whip up something for you in a few minutes if you really need a CCTV/WIFI disruptor.  I have lots of devices I don't dare operate inside the house, the EEEE being one of them. Yes, it is still in the wings waiting for the right time to debut.
It was the circuit from the Ukrainian Government's Agricultural institute based in Kiev. It was a replication of only a part of a Don Smith circuit.  It kept blowing bulbs and they concluded that this required further study.  It was performed by a PHD student for his exams and supervised by the appropriate professor.
Sorry, I still don't recall. Are you sure you shared the circuit with me, and not some other crazed koala? Why don't you just open another thread and post the circuit there and if I have it among all this other junk... sorry, junque... we can discuss it if you think it is really important.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 07:47:23 AM
One form of energy. Can you tell me what you think voltage is? And pulling out a voltmeter and turning it on is not telling me what it is. I don't care about definitions myself as I try and understand people's meaning even when they differ with me in words.
Yes, I can tell you what voltage is. But since you don't care about definitions, why should I? Can you answer my question? A bunch of caps charged to the same voltage. All therefore have the same energy. Right, if voltage is "one form of energy". Wrong, if they have different energies. Yes or no? I am not asking you to define anything, I am asking you if the capacitors have the same energy or not.
Quote

Well I was just told by one of the moderators that you were banned from their forum. Obviously not Aaron's as that would possibly be good.
I am not F6. He's French and knows what he is talking about in the field of radio electronics and isn't afraid to say it. I'm Texan, and also not afraid.
Quote

So you really think that if you just say the same thing over and over that people are going to take you seriously? No matter how many times you say you have something doesn't make it true bud. No matter how many times you say the earth is flat it won't change the reality. You can say I have never flown in an airplane because you don't believe in human flight, and you can claim to have gone to the moon but no one thinks you are capable. Repeating that over and over doesn't convince anyone of that. There may be something really wrong with you. Are you seeking recognition, to be acknowledged? Everyone, pay attention. This Tinsel has something important to say. Nothing to show, just something to say. He has something. It really is just a whole lot of hot air.  ::)  But he wants you to know that he has something important to say about himself. Yep that he is important. And you can't refute that. He knows it even if nobody else does ;)
Do you know what a "straw man argument" is? How about "Argumentum ad hominem, abusive" ? Do you know what those are? They are _logical fallacies_. You cannot refute me, so you make up things like airplanes and flat earths that have nothing to do with the fact that you can't define your OverUnity in common physics terms or demonstrate its reality. So you resort to insulting me personally, when I am simply criticizing your unsupported claims and your lack of cooperation in providing evidence for them.As far as saying things over and over.... pot kettle black.

Quote
We love you T. I hope you get some help.
LOL! You don't know what love is! But whatever it is, you certainly don't feel it for me, and I'm glad of that! I do need some help though. Want to come over and help me change the rack and pinion unit on my car?
Quote
So far you have shared not one important thing in these hours you jumped in here. Only repeating the same thing over and over.
Somebody has to take up the baton, since the other people who are telling you the same things must be getting tired of it. But it doesn't seem to sink in! Claims of OverUnity should be supported with evidence! Joules out > Joules in !
Quote
You have not revealed anything but naming a few units of energy that you would find in a high school primary book. Oh, yeah, you gave a nice little trick that I figured out. I guess your videos are just that a trick. Some parts thrown together with some scribbled numbers on them to give appearance that you are special. Why would I bother watching another video when the first one really had little benefit. Come on Rick, don't think it was proof of anything, but what do you think it proved? I guess nothing. How a foolish person keeps drawing attention to himself and says that you can't disprove him doing that. That's how you come across man! That's what stands out. Behold the man! Look no further! That is worse than Bedini.
Silly you! You don't seem familiar yourself with those high school physics units since you avoid them like the plague and scramble them like eggs. Otherwise we (not just I) wouldn't have to bring them up so often. And you criticize something you admit you haven't even watched!
Worse than Bedini! No... Better than Bedini is the MHOP.

I argue against your claims. You insult me personally because can't refute my arguments. That is pretty much the bottom line, and it happens over and over again... but nobody manages to demonstrate actual OU.

You do know that there are many thousands of dollars available in various OverUnity Prizes, don't you? How many of them have you won, or even applied for?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 14, 2019, 07:58:24 AM
   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

Hi Nick. Have you ever seen any reasonably done self-looped demonstration from Rick?
I suspect the answer is no. If you have not, then why waste your time with his... err... unfounded claims? 
I suspect you'll be waiting a very long time if you are expecting any straight forward and reasonable answers
from Rick. To be frank, everything he does and says screams pure nonsense. I get that some people
just like playing around with circuits whether it is COP > 1 or not, but the truth is if someone really has
something unusual they should be able to self-loop it and demonstrate it relatively easily, in most cases.
In some cases, some special effort may be required to provide better impedance matching when trying to self loop,
or if the COP is not much > 1, then some form of daisy chaining may be required as TK has mentioned.
Really though self-looping shouldn't be too difficult to do in most cases.

When a person immediately goes into silly rationalizations and bafflegab and deflections when someone
mentions about self-looping, then you can be 99.9999% sure they are just blowing smoke. Rick does this for a business,
so that is probably a good part of the reason why he blows so much smoke. He probably assumes he can continue to fool his
naive customers and keep the money rolling in just as long as he continues to pile on the bafflegab nonsense. Anyone with
even a basic understanding of electronics should see pretty quick that he is talking a lot of nonsense.

Self-looping separates the wheat from the chaff, and there sure is mountains of chaff and lots of lame excuses out there. ;)

I have been really busy for the last while, but I thought I would stop by and see what's happening here lately.
As I mentioned in the past I saw a few potentially interesting things in my testing when testing with the Kapanadze/Akula/Ruslan
types of arrangements. If I get some time, maybe in the winter, I will try to dig a little deeper into it.
From what I have seen, that approach seems to possibly be a little more potentially promising avenue of experimentation, where
most other approaches don't seem to hold water. :D

All the best guys....
Don't be fooled by bafflegab. Self-looping talks, bafflegab walks... All else is folly. ;)



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2019, 08:03:44 AM
Quote
So far you have shared not one important thing in these hours you jumped in here. Only repeating the same thing over and over.
So I guess I missed the part where YOU "shared" the other things that can be done with the gate driver, like modulating it with the Enable pin and using an E-field antenna or singleturn EM loop to autoresonate instead of fiddling with a function generator, before my post to Itsu. Please post a link!  Or is that within your definition of "not one important thing"?

By the way, I know that Itsu already knew those things! We've been doing this stuff for a lot longer than you seem to think. But maybe other builders might not have known.

And of course it's not important to demonstrate the importance of taking phase into account when measuring real and reactive power in the MicroQEG, nor to demonstrate zero current readings while LEDs shine brilliantly in the TinMan Bifilar device, and it is really unimportant to analyze the Partzman Bifilar Transformer to understand why it gives OU measurements. Nobody is interested in that silly unimportant stuff, while you are showing a room full of LEDs running off a battery and a function generator and claiming it is OU.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on July 14, 2019, 11:59:35 AM
...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.

Right now I am experimenting with an un-tuned system and even a thin cable of 15 cm anywhere in between the line bottlenecks the outcome. It also looks like that proper termination plays a significant role. At least to an un-tuned system.         

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.

That is so true. So many things which beg for innovation and improvement. Materials alone is a whole subject.

...But my point is always been to do what is easy and focus on the points that matter.

Thank you :)

Ps. If anyone interests in a quick and dirty measuring technique of input/output energy, then I suggest you the cap-in / cap-out method. Two identical caps one across the input and one across the output. Charge the input cap to any voltage level fits to your application, disconnect your battery, and then switch your device on. Watch by using two voltage meters, the voltage across the two caps. Then use one of the many online energy calculators to see where you are. In my current experiment I charge both of the caps to 24V, I start operation, and when input energy has dissipated, then i compare the numbers. Just that easy.   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 01:21:23 PM
Void,
I already answered your self-looped reasoning. You just pile the same nonsense over and over. That's the game here, ignore what is said and repeat. Fill the thread up like T with useless words.
If there wasn't anything to what I have said then you guys would not be so interested in trying to drown it out.
You're the one not responding to me at all, and then you say I'm not being straight forward.
The truth is some of you guys really think OU is nonsense and that is what you are ultimately saying here. That is your game.
Self-looping is not a problem. I have done that for 15 years now. But there is a better way where the system is in balance and does not need looping as it is self-running while the loads continue to run.
I do demonstrate this in the real world. You live behind your screen in fantasy land doing nothing useful here.

Yeah, you described yourself perfectly:
"Don't be fooled by bafflegab. Self-looping talks, bafflegab walks... All else is folly. ;)" That's all you do is self-looping talks, circle reasoning. Void of truth.

Hi Nick. Have you ever seen any reasonably done self-looped demonstration from Rick?
I suspect the answer is no. If you have not, then why waste your time with his... err... unfounded claims?  I suspect you'll be waiting a very long time if you are expecting any straight forward and reasonable answers from Rick. To be frank, everything he does and says screams pure nonsense. I get that some people just like playing around with circuits whether it is COP > 1 or not, but the truth is if someone really has something unusual they should be able to self-loop it and demonstrate it relatively easily, in most cases. In some cases, some special effort may be required to provide better impedance matching when trying to self loop, or if the COP is not much > 1, then some form of daisy chaining may be required as TK has mentioned. Really though self-looping shouldn't be too difficult to do in most cases.

When a person immediately goes into silly rationalizations and bafflegab and deflections when someone mentions about self-looping, then you can be 99.9999% sure they are just blowing smoke. Rick does this for a business, so that is probably a good part of the reason why he blows so much smoke. He probably assumes he can continue to fool his naive customers and keep the money rolling in just as long as he continues to pile on the bafflegab nonsense. Anyone with even a basic understanding of electronics should see pretty quick that he is talking a lot of nonsense.

Self-looping separates the wheat from the chaff, and there sure is mountains of chaff and lots of lame excuses out there. ;)

I have been really busy for the last while, but I thought I would stop by and see what's happening here lately. As I mentioned in the past I saw a few potentially interesting things in my testing when testing with the Kapanadze/Akula/Ruslan types of arrangements. If I get some time, maybe in the winter, I will try to dig a little deeper into it. From what I have seen, that approach seems to possibly be a little more potentially promising avenue of experimentation, where most other approaches don't seem to hold water. :D

All the best guys....
Don't be fooled by bafflegab. Self-looping talks, bafflegab walks... All else is folly. ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 14, 2019, 01:34:28 PM
I sense you are tiring Rick. Your posts are getting shorter.  ;) Has the penny dropped yet.  ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 01:37:21 PM
Bla bla bla, you can go back and actually read what has been said, you are not worth wasting any time on. If you want answers then read what has already been said. All you do is repeat your folly over and over again. You jump in here to grab attention and then want people to tell you what is going on. You want people to watch your videos because they are some kind of trick. You are not as important as you make yourself out to be. Sorry to burst your bubble.

So I guess I missed the part where YOU "shared" the other things that can be done with the gate driver, like modulating it with the Enable pin and using an E-field antenna or singleturn EM loop to autoresonate instead of fiddling with a function generator, before my post to Itsu. Please post a link!  Or is that within your definition of "not one important thing"?

By the way, I know that Itsu already knew those things! We've been doing this stuff for a lot longer than you seem to think. But maybe other builders might not have known.

And of course it's not important to demonstrate the importance of taking phase into account when measuring real and reactive power in the MicroQEG, nor to demonstrate zero current readings while LEDs shine brilliantly in the TinMan Bifilar device, and it is really unimportant to analyze the Partzman Bifilar Transformer to understand why it gives OU measurements. Nobody is interested in that silly unimportant stuff, while you are showing a room full of LEDs running off a battery and a function generator and claiming it is OU.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 01:41:02 PM
Jeg,
What device are you using for showing that cap test?

Right now I am experimenting with an un-tuned system and even a thin cable of 15 cm anywhere in between the line bottlenecks the outcome. It also looks like that proper termination plays a significant role. At least to an un-tuned system.         

That is so true. So many things which beg for innovation and improvement. Materials alone is a whole subject.

Thank you :)

Ps. If anyone interests in a quick and dirty measuring technique of input/output energy, then I suggest you the cap-in / cap-out method. Two identical caps one across the input and one across the output. Charge the input cap to any voltage level fits to your application, disconnect your battery, and then switch your device on. Watch by using two voltage meters, the voltage across the two caps. Then use one of the many online energy calculators to see where you are. In my current experiment I charge both of the caps to 24V, I start operation, and when input energy has dissipated, then i compare the numbers. Just that easy.   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on July 14, 2019, 02:24:14 PM
Rick
It can be used with any device which is able to charge a cap at the output. In Itsu's build for example, each output led can be substituted with a cap, and at the end of the working operation he can calculate in a minute all the added gained energy from each reactor versus his input energy consumption. I use it to see the impact of any change I make to my circuit, and works fine without having doubts.  ;)

   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on July 14, 2019, 02:59:35 PM
Hi Rick,
thanks a lot for your answer and also that I can call you up. Very nice, that you start a new website! Yes, I will check my transistor first.
I made a big mistake. I haven't made pictures of my working setup and now I am not sure, if I have the same configuration again, or some other factors are the reason. My battery was also unused since round about a month, because I have switched my experiments from the motor setup completly to the resonance kit.
Perhaps my batteries started to sulfate. I will measure the Wh in it first  and eliminate all other factors, then I will come back and answer your questions.
Quote
One thing to look at with those old setups is placing a 100W LED module in series with the charging battery and tell me if it really lights up or is relatively faint.
Sorry if I have confused you, because of my lack of english. I haven't used one of your older motors, it is a self builded motor. With that, I never tried to run such a big 100W LED Module. I have to buy one first, and then come back here, to answer your questions.
Thank you Rick.

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

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

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

One thing to look at with those old setups is placing a 100W LED module in series with the charging battery and tell me if it really lights up or is relatively faint. Or check the collector and emitter with the scope when you are charging a sulfated battery with little capacity. Tell me what the voltage is? We are looking to see the effects of suitable impulsing. This is all before the other questions. Well looking again at what you wrote that should be fine. You can remove the capacitors with the inductors and try some different arrangements... Again, you can call sometime and we can go over exactly what you have there.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 14, 2019, 03:56:59 PM
Some facts:


Tinsel Koala does not remember so I am going to post the overunity experimental circuit done by the Ukrainian government's agricultural college.  We corresponded for some time.

Here are some of Rick's REAL CUSTOMERS in the REAL WORLD.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucvc38NCg9k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucvc38NCg9k)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXBAniR1JY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXBAniR1JY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX_rlCAFQxs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX_rlCAFQxs)


These are customers who have purchased his products.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 14, 2019, 04:26:27 PM
  Well, it looks like those happy customers are going to need that battery charger, for their OU tests.  Perhaps a few of the thousands of happy customers that Rick has mentioned, would like to share their self running or OU results, here. The ones that bought his device, not the battery charger. As this thread is not about battery chargers.
   I think that by now, if Rick was going to actually show us his device producing OU, he would have done so. Not just sitting around and watching a bunch of dim leds.
   And, I think that we know why he won't show the total output readings of his device, at least to the best of his abilities.
   
   TinselKoala:  Welcome to the troll party. Only trolls ask for true readings, so, welcome to the club. It's getting bigger by the day.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 14, 2019, 05:08:39 PM
I wonder! is this video off topic ? Some might very well think not ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ar7vovnH5I
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 05:28:13 PM
Nick, we not just laughing at you little jokes, but at you as well.
I think it is now settled that you cannot prove things over the internet. You just want to perpetuate credulousness in incredulousness. I already have many videos. But I'll work on organizing them on a page. I doesn't matter what any video shows, you will still say the same thing. Just like when I answer all of your questions and then you just act like that never happened. So you and T are just the same. Just repeating the same things.
IF YOU WANT TO SEE METERED READINGS THEN COME HERE IN THE REAL WORLD AND BRING YOUR OWN METERS!!!
Where were you when I did all my demonstrations? I have at least 4 public meetings a year these days. Where were you when I gave boat rides? You guys would rather settle for a picture than the real world experience because you just live behind a screen in a fantasy.
Now why would people bother to try and prove something to you about something they already use. My customers don't care about these forums, and I don't care for anyone to push my products on these forums. As it is I can't keep up with the interest.
You wouldn't be so interested in repeatedly insulting me if you really believed what you say. So you only prove the opposite of what you type. You would have been better off to just move on to something else. But you are fixated with this. You can't put it down.


  Well, it looks like those happy customers are going to need that battery charger, for their OU tests.  Perhaps a few of the thousands of happy customers that Rick has mentioned, would like to share their self running or OU results, here. The ones that bought his device, not the battery charger. As this thread is not about battery chargers.
   I think that by now, if Rick was going to actually show us his device producing OU, he would have done so. Not just sitting around and watching a bunch of dim leds.
   And, I think that we know why he won't show the total output readings of his device, at least to the best of his abilities.
   
   TinselKoala:  Welcome to the troll party. Only trolls ask for true readings, so, welcome to the club. It's getting bigger by the day.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 14, 2019, 05:39:54 PM
Mr Tinsel Koala:  I would be very interested in your comment on the following picture.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 14, 2019, 05:56:01 PM
Mr Tinsel Koala:  I would be very interested in your comment on the following picture.
That's got to be a red rag to a bull.  ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 14, 2019, 06:57:55 PM
That's got to be a red rag to a bull.  ;D

       But, they would make for nice Christmas lights.
   NOTICE : how Rick avoids the subject concerning scope shots and accurate readings. And posts more negative personal insults, instead.   I doubt that TK will let that one go by, unnoticed. Troll club revolt.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 14, 2019, 07:00:34 PM
Mr Tinsel Koala:  I would be very interested in your comment on the following picture.
Yeah I can get as much light out of a 1 Watt LED from wicks for 2.5 euro !! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: steeltpu on July 14, 2019, 07:48:32 PM
never thought i'd say this but glad to see Tinsel Koala show up here.   if rf really had anything he'd post a circuit with details and parts list that could be replicated by some of the better builders here.   then they could verify if there was ou.  that won't happen though
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 14, 2019, 07:53:24 PM
   So, Rick asked me where I was when he was giving all those group chats. Well I guess that I was right here, (below).
Trying to figure out how to light my house on flea farts, by replicating Dr. Stiffler and other guys OU systems.
   The third image is showing the lighting of two AC 120v 8.5w gutted and modified grid bulbs, on a tiny and I mean tiny 13.6MHz crystal oscillator. Which will light my house, almost as bright as the grid.
   Of course, you can't prove anything over the internet, according to Rick. We can agree, on that.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 14, 2019, 08:01:29 PM
never thought i'd say this but glad to see Tinsel Koala show up here.   if rf really had anything he'd post a circuit with details and parts list that could be replicated by some of the better builders here.   then they could verify if there was ou.  that won't happen though
He's frightened of us conducting a serious technical analysis of even one of his 15 OU devices by him showing meaningful scope shots. His get-out / excuse is more than likely that his devices cannot be properly measured by conventional instrumentation. The more he carries on with this attitude, the more he will be derided. Words alone are not cutting it for him. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 08:02:53 PM
How can you verify if someone has OU through the internet? You can verify in person if someone has something. You can verify to yourself that you have done something. But you can't verify to anyone else that you have verified someone else in person, and also then verified it yourself in person to people over the internet.
I have already provided parts and instructions.

never thought i'd say this but glad to see Tinsel Koala show up here.   if rf really had anything he'd post a circuit with details and parts list that could be replicated by some of the better builders here.   then they could verify if there was ou.  that won't happen though
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 08:09:09 PM
Like I said, I've already shown all of that. You guys just ignore everything. The fact that your are so fixated with this and constantly parroting the same thing shows that I'm really upsetting your game here. You guys are just a bunch of Trolls wasting everyone's time.

He's frightened of us conducting a serious technical analysis of even one of his 15 OU devices by him showing meaningful scope shots. His get-out / excuse is more than likely that his devices cannot be properly measured by conventional instrumentation. The more he carries on with this attitude, the more he will be derided. Words alone are not cutting it for him.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 14, 2019, 08:12:30 PM
How can you verify if someone has OU through the internet? You can verify in person if someone has something. You can verify to yourself that you have done something. But you can't verify to anyone else that you have verified someone else in person, and also then verified it yourself in person to people over the internet.
I have already provided parts and instructions.
OK, then send an OU kit to either or both ITSU and Tinsel for analysis. Alternatively, send them a decent circuit diagram and component list for them to construct, test and verify your claim. I'll wait for your excuse.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 14, 2019, 08:15:50 PM
Like I said, I've already shown all of that.
Not true.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 14, 2019, 08:16:21 PM
   What a cop out Rick. No one is buying your excuses. While you (or the unknown "we"), are laughing at my comments concerning readings.
   I want you to have and show success. I believe that you may have something there. Or I wouldn't waste so much time, pleading with you.
   You may not be able to fully show OU by scope shots and readings. That may be the case here, but, that also needs to be verified. But, you won't even at least try to show, what you can show, concerning output readings.  Itsu can show them, TK can, other guys have been able to. But, not you.
   Are you going to give me the run around again?
   We are not trolls, and don't need your insults. There were no "trolls" here, until you showed up. Funny how that works.   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 14, 2019, 08:19:48 PM
Well...itsu is "that kind of guy" the kind of fellow who always does his best and has been rock solid in this community .EXTREME integrity here.

another fellow who Helps him sometimes Gyula , I have not been able to read every word here... But Gyula is similar in the way he handles himself and a consistent assistant to persons here and elsewhere.Two amazingly benevolent and honest fellows,dealing with language barriers and all manner of issues... to do the best they can.

Past performance is a very good indicator ,and ten years plus 
not even a bump in the road....[CONSISTENT]

and always looks for verification from his peers.
I must add  this group of regular FE hunters would absolutely believe him/them [and then back it up on their own bench].
not just one mans opinion.
respectfully// Chet K //////EDIT ...ps//  ..I type slowly and kept adding thoughts [I see Hoppy copied some of my "thoughts in progress" below...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 14, 2019, 08:22:01 PM
Well...itsu is "that kind of guy" the kind of fellow who always does his best and has been rock solid in this community .EXTREME integrity here.

another fellow who Helps him sometimes Gyula , I have not been able to read every word here... But Gyula is similar in the way he handles himself and a consistent assistant to persons here and elsewhere.

Past performance is a very good indicator ,and ten years plus 
not even a bump in the road....[CONSISTENT]

and always looks for verification from his peers.
I must add  this group of regular FE hunters would absolutelybelieve him/them [and then back it up on their own bench.
not just one mans opinion.
respectfullyChet K
Well said Chet.  :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 08:57:53 PM
Most of you guys are Troll here. If I was T I would argue, prove me wrong. Haha, you always show evidence of being that. What is the difference, being a Troll or acting like one. Same thing.
I didn't share all this for you guys but for many others who have watched this. So I am not worried about what you say. It has given me many examples and proofs. Now I will publish this online. This will be helpful for real people who actually want to learn and not fall for all your diversions and games.

I have had success for a long time Nick. I don't need recognition. I am here to help people not engage in argument. All you Trolls are just combatative and merely try and manipulate people. You have seen that I answered all your questions. But you really never answer mine. Then you say you did or just ignore them. You have all the information you need, but it doesn't matter because you will just pervert anything that is said and done. You all just cycle around the same old troll activity. I have seen what this lists produces. Itsu's work will never go anywhere because it never has all these years. Yet you put all your trust in it. You assume it is science. I have seen enough what you have done with anything I have shown or said. I tested you all out and now people can see who you really are. There are other people here who are positive and I will work with them. I work with people privately. I make friends all over the world. I have thousands of friends that I put time in with and that is how I do my work. I am not looking for some internet recognition.

I find it really hard to believe that you guys have been here all these years and don't know the first thing about OU. If you do then why can't you convince G? If T is source of all wisdom and OU then why can't he convince G or anyone? Why are you guys not using the energy? Maybe you are. How are we really to know? So I am not convinced that you guys need convincing. You are just trying to pull more information out of people and then attack them for it. Same old game going on for many years now. Well at least that is obvious now.

   What a cop out Rick. No one is buying your excuses. While you (or the unknown "we"), are laughing at my comments concerning readings.
   I want you to have and show success. I believe that you may have something there. Or I wouldn't waste so much time, pleading with you.
   You may not be able to fully show OU by scope shots and readings. That may be the case here, but, that also needs to be verified. But, you won't even at least try to show, what you can show, concerning output readings.  Itsu can show them, TK can, other guys have been able to. But, not you.
   Are you going to give me the run around again?
   We are not trolls, and don't need your insults. There were no "trolls" here, until you showed up. Funny how that works.   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 14, 2019, 09:07:08 PM
   You know Rick that calling someone a troll, or a lier, and all the other insults that you've posted here, is cause for alarm.    You are the one making claims, which need verification. You've called most everyone here a troll. Not even because they don't agree with you, but, because we are simply are asking for verification. So, you insult them, and make up excuses for not doing so.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 14, 2019, 09:16:11 PM

Thanks guys,  but i am no saint, nor perfect as can be seen in some of my last posts both here and at OUR.com
where i somehow was triggered to write things i normally would not write.

But you are wasting your time here as there seems to be a fundamental difference in what OverUnity suppose to
mean and how to deal with it when someone claims to have reached it.

Lets agree to disagree on that and each continue to pursuit our goal, being OU.


Itsu 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 14, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
Hi Guys,first many thanks to Rick for all his great work and publishing it for free here !
Well, a friend of mine has also his Resonance Kit and he got it to work in OU mode...
So, also he mentioned to me, that some posters over here seem to
deliberately make bad videos that do not work !

So here seem to be now very many trolls, who are trying to combat free energy for what ever reasons they have...

So to the other people I can only say, don´t trust everything you see here, if some experimenters do videos
and say, it does not work... Better try it yourself !

Also this way, you can learn much more from it, than only watching videos from others, who might also
have bad or broken measurement equipment or no good scope or wrong adjusted scope heads, etc, etc...

But my friend will send me a video, so I can see, what he has done so far with the Kit from Rick.

Stay tuned.

Many thanks again to Rick Friedrich for his great work !

Regards, Stefan ( Admin).

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 09:57:49 PM
No, I haven't called most everyone a troll. But I think people can tell the difference. Itsu gives no indication of being that. While we have some differences, I accept what he is aiming for. I don't see games being played there. But several of you guys play some serious games here which I have pointed out. One of you even admitted to setting a trap while pretending to promote OU. Even when I figured out the riddle abuse was still hurled at me without any basis. Who does that kind of thing? And you. You flip back and forth like bipolar or something. And if that is the case I hope you get help. But you play games here. Now you talk about alarm. You guys do not take any of this serious. Seriously, alarm  ::)
Nick, Nick, Nick, EVERYONE IS MAKING CLAIMS. That is my point. You just don't get it do you? You need verification for whatever you claim. If someone is seeking to prove something then they need verification. This is not OUR where they forbid claims. This is a place to share information to help each other. You, and others, have made it into a combat zone. You frequently insult and intimidate to pull information from people. That is the fruit of trolls, not of people trying to help each other out. When someone is giving a gift, do you insult them for more gifts? You are not even polite. Just demanding. Then twisting it like I am seeking recognition like someone else we know. What you have actually done is driven people way, which is another fruit of Trolls. What have I done, I have increased traffic to this thread because a lot of my friends are reading all this.
You can ask questions, and I have answered more questions than anyone. You are making claims as well. You don't expect verification for those claims. If my claims had no substance to them then there would have been no dialogue of hundreds of posts. But you know there is substance because you even said so. You have an idea of the work I have been doing for many years. It is public knowledge. I am not NickZ who is only a screen name. I didn't just show up here out of the blue and make some crazy claim. If that was the case people would laugh and move on. But no, even some of my customers are here and reported what they saw. And what I have shared makes sense to you guys. Maybe you already know these things, or maybe you are just missing some points. Who can tell? But what I know is that when I drove home the main things I wanted to prove, then you all ran away from that and flipped out into this last desperate attempt to divert from that. Again, the main point is now settled, that you cannot prove any OU claim or disprove any OU claim over the internet. No one was saying that before I did that here. You were all wasting so much time under that delusion. That is very significant. Some of you admitted it, but you still assume the opposite here and there. You hate me for bursting the bubble and brining you into reality. Sober you up. And that is far more important for you do come to than anything else. For what good can any of this do if you can't do science, and you mix assumptions and insufficient evidence in your research? What happens is that this Forum just continues to produce uncertainty and disbelief of OU.

What you guys need to do is have meet ups and share what you know in the real world. That is what most people are doing in free energy research. Yes, way more than those on these forums. Then you can verify each other's works and really help each other. Then you won't waste another 10 years of your life because you just chase assumptions...

   You know Rick that calling someone a troll, or a lier, and all the other insults that you've posted here, is cause for alarm.    You are the one making claims, which need verification. You've called most everyone here a troll. Not even because they don't agree with you, but, because we are simply are asking for verification. So, you insult them, and make up excuses for not doing so.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 10:06:43 PM
Thanks Stefan,
This is good to hear.
This is what I have been saying. I'm just here to try and help, but I am not about to be pushed into giving gifts. I will decide in my own way and in my own time what I wish to share. My policy has been to let others share what they find rather than have me try and convince others of something. People have been happy with the kit even though it is far from perfect.
My goal here is not to focus in on one circuit but to now share the principles of free energy so that people can do this many ways. This is a new approach. People want things from me but after all these years I know what works for people to learn this.
So stay tuned for that.
Regards,
Rick

Hi Guys,first many thanks to Rick for all his great work and publishing it for free here !
Well, a friend of mine has also his Resonance Kit and he got it to work in OU mode...
So, also he mentioned to me, that some posters over here seem to
deliberately make bad videos that do not work !

So here seem to be now very many trolls, who are trying to combat free energy for what ever reasons they have...

So to the other people I can only say, don´t trust everything you see here, if some experimenters do videos
and say, it does not work... Better try it yourself !

Also this way, you can learn much more from it, than only watching videos from others, who might also
have bad or broken measurement equipment or no good scope or wrong adjusted scope heads, etc, etc...

But my friend will send me a video, so I can see, what he has done so far with the Kit from Rick.

Stay tuned.

Many thanks again to Rick Friedrich for his great work !

Regards, Stefan ( Admin).

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: itsu on July 14, 2019, 10:26:25 PM
Hi Guys,first many thanks to Rick for all his great work and publishing it for free here !
Well, a friend of mine has also his Resonance Kit and he got it to work in OU mode...
So, also he mentioned to me, that some posters over here seem to deliberately make bad videos that do not work !

So here seem to be now very many trolls, who are trying to combat free energy for what ever reasons they have...

So to the other people I can only say, don´t trust everything you see here, if some experimenters do videos
and say, it does not work... Better try it yourself !

Also this way, you can learn much more from it, than only watching videos from others, who might also
have bad or broken measurement equipment or no good scope or wrong adjusted scope heads, etc, etc...

But my friend will send me a video, so I can see, what he has done so far with the Kit from Rick.

Stay tuned.

Many thanks again to Rick Friedrich for his great work !

Regards, Stefan ( Admin).


Yeah thanks for the trust Stefan, i can see you have done your homework.

I am out of here,  please remove all my posts and remove my userid.


Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 14, 2019, 10:39:51 PM
O hello Mr. F riedrich, do you remember me ?
I am the troll who invite you to the benfr and a.king21 discussion about your coil device , your post level has been : 78 !
Now we did not become nearer to fruitable results,even your post state : 295

But okay ,let us wait for the Admins his friend his video  8) video explains more than 1000 words


       video killed the radio( frequency) star  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 14, 2019, 10:42:07 PM
Thank you Itsu for all your tests and videos
I believe in your honesty.
You have my vote.
Don't forget to buy a kit . . . .   ::)

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 14, 2019, 11:08:28 PM
Yeah thanks for the trust Stefan, i can see you have done your homework.

I am out of here,  please remove all my posts and remove my userid.


Regards Itsu
Me also Stefan. Please remove all my posts and remove my user ID.
Thanks
Hoppy
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 14, 2019, 11:15:36 PM
Stefan  I think some clarity is required here,
although I can't imagine who else you were referring to [the Vids showing failure ?
are you referring to itsu ?
is it too late to take a call?
Chet

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 11:25:50 PM
That's not true. I can't help people if they just want to attack. I did not come here to prove OU through the forum. I came here to help, and I did help people if you read what was said. It's no my responsibility to deal with all of this. I came here when things were in full swing. People were doing their own thing. They were never doing my kit. I answered questions. Everyone made their own claims but somehow I am supposed to be the one proving claims when no one else is. This place is not about proving claims but about sharing information to help others and they can prove things to themselves. You guys are expecting too much while attacking at the same time. So you do not understand what took place. A lot of things were covered about other systems as well.

O hello Mr. F riedrich, do you remember me ?
I am the troll who invite you to the benfr and a.king21 discussion about your coil device , your post level has been : 78 !
Now we did not become nearer to fruitable results,even your post state : 295

But okay ,let us wait for the Admins his friend his video  8) video explains more than 1000 words


       video killed the radio( frequency) star  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 14, 2019, 11:36:00 PM
Probably T, in that he deliberately was trying to trap me playing games with fake OU claims. While his videos were not replications the way he was attempting to try and trick me into a deceptive conclusion was possibly what added to it.
While there has been a steady flow of bad activity here, it certainly intensified and appeared coordinated the last few days.

Stefan  I think some clarity is required here,
although I can't imagine who else you were referring to [the Vids showing failure ?
are you referring to itsu ?
is it too late to take a call?
Chet
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on July 14, 2019, 11:43:12 PM
And its not even a full moon :D

Itsu, Stefan didn't mean you. Before some pages a video was posted with a guy who clamed that he is an owner of one of Rick's kits and that it doesn't work. That is all. I didn't watch the video but Rick has already commented on this.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 14, 2019, 11:55:13 PM
"..this place is not about proving claims ..."  :o
"RE:Confirmation of OU devices and claims" ???
Ai sinq ai heff 2 rifrech Mai inglitsch for understanding ectual lotschik end explaenaschion methodism  ;D
I like your life-style and freshness,Mister Peace(= Fried)' + full(= reich/rich)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 14, 2019, 11:58:49 PM
   Well, the moon is full enough to cause all the recent earthquakes, floods, and weird weather.   And full enough for me to ditch this thread, as well.
   There are NO TROLLS, and NO GAMES being played here. And NO verification of OU, either. That was all we had asked for...   But, we only get insults and more insults, each time. NOT Good...
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 15, 2019, 12:00:47 AM
Stefan,

Where is common sense?  You believe claims from someone saying about deliberately made bad videos without your own judgement on those allegedly "bad" videos? Please do not say you have no time to watch one or two videos, just make time for it and then come here and write such post.
Just from one message from one person and that is enough for you to call 'very many members' of your forum trolls?  I am fabberglasted by your attitude. 

Gyula


...
So, also he mentioned to me, that some posters over here seem to deliberately make bad videos that do not work !

So here seem to be now very many trolls, who are trying to combat free energy for what ever reasons they have...

So to the other people I can only say, don´t trust everything you see here, if some experimenters do videos
and say, it does not work... Better try it yourself !
....

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 15, 2019, 12:08:57 AM
Stefan,

I too see no reason to stay on this forum.  Please remove my posts and remove my ID.

Partzman
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 15, 2019, 12:26:54 AM
Hello NickZ,

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/dlattach/attach/173477/image// (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/dlattach/attach/173477/image//)
nice estancia/hacienda !
How many meters over/above coastal water line ? Atlantic side, is it not. ?
Only thinking " in tomorrow"! 8) ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 15, 2019, 12:31:22 AM
I think everyone needs to calm down. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 15, 2019, 12:36:00 AM
If you bother to read what I wrote. This place is not about proving things over the internet. It is about sharing information and helping others prove it to themselves. People confirm OU devices and claims IN THE REAL WORLD. Nice job changing my words and meaning.

"..this place is not about proving claims ..."  :o
"RE:Confirmation of OU devices and claims" ???
Ai sinq ai heff 2 rifrech Mai inglitsch for understanding ectual lotschik end explaenaschion methodism  ;D
I like your life-style and freshness,Mister Peace(= Fried)' + full(= reich/rich)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 15, 2019, 12:48:39 AM
I think everyone needs to calm down.  Where is Tinsel Koala when we need him?


Just because someone says they have replicated Rick's kit does nor mean people should leave the forum.  Let us wait for the evidence.

   Lanca:  Glad that you liked my town. It's located in the southern pacific part of Costa Rica. I live 50 meters away from the beach. That's where I've been, for the last 36 years, and planning on living here, until death do us part.
   a.king:  No one is leaving the forum because someone says that they've replicated Rick's kit. We have been waiting for the evidence all along. As THAT is what this thread is all about. Still waiting... how many more insults will we have to bear, until then?   Yes, this thread is the most popular right now. As we are all trying to get to the heart of the matter. But, so far, it's going no where, while at the same time, some of it's best people are bailing out. I hope that that does not happen, over a misunderstanding. So, let's try to follow up on all this, and other claims as well. The truth needs to he known.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 15, 2019, 12:58:59 AM
Mr.Friedrich, this forum makes communication by Internet use,
without to change your word/-s or meanings you are writing that you will not confirm benfr and a.king21 their trials,they referring their work by your  coil/-s concept  and " video instructions" + book.

Itsu did temptate to replicate a.king21 propagated device,with published results.
To help them would be your interest,you did not in the right teaching/coaching manner.
From post 78 to post 297 :  independent from "the Admins friends video"

 in a Restaurant I would not need to pay for such a bad service                                             


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 15, 2019, 01:01:39 AM
Okay, please can we all calm down please.
Well I have seen now the video of my friend, who ordered the Resonance kit from Rick with its about 70 pages
booklet , which shows his resonance LC circuits driven by the frequency generator .Some LEDs lighting up with about 10 mA of input current at around 10 Volts input voltage.
The frequency generator is running at around 1.1 to 1.3 Mhz in this range...
Well he had a 3 Watts LED LED running pretty brightly and some other smaller LEDs also.
He says with his new better caps and improved coils he could run it now at 4 mA of input current at simular brightness.
He has not looped yet the output to the input, but he will soon try to do this also....
At least he has understood now how to do it and the booklet from Rick really helped him to get all the tricks and to tune it right...
Some other experimentors here have only used their own parts and not the kit from Rick and might have missed some important things...
So as long as you don´t build it yourself, you will never know, if another experimentor missed an important point...
Also some experimentors sometimes never do the experiments other advanced knowledable engineers
have proposed... so they might have missed important facts...
So you decide yourself, who to trust or not to trust and for what reasons...
My friend said, the Kit from Rick brought him the right insights...
Sorry he wants to stay anonymous for now, so I can´t post his video, but he is also reading this thread over here...

He still wants to try the looped version first and see, if it will work...
But the real input power is really low for all the light output he is getting right now...
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 15, 2019, 01:20:34 AM
Hi Stefan,
And which are the "bad videos" your friend referred to?

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 15, 2019, 01:21:43 AM
Yes, this thread is the most popular right now. As we are all trying to get to the heart of the matter. But, so far, it's going no where, while at the same time, some of it's best people are bailing out. I hope that that does not happen, over a misunderstanding. So, let try to follow up on this and other claims. The truth needs to he known.
Well, if some people want to leave now the forum and requested to delete all their postings, it is too bad, as this would rip this interesting topic totally apart and important things would be missing , as seen from a history standpoint later seeing, who did what and who did achive what, etc.....

So I would rather want, these people to stay here and discuss out the controversy in a good manner...
I don´t acuse any members to do this on purpose, maybe they just did not get the right effects, hard to say , if I have not measured their circuits myself...or they sometimes don´t draw the right conclusion and thus not doing the right experiments and missing the important points...
Everybody is different in his perception...

So I am sorry, if my former comments pissed some members off...I apologize...!!

Also if you really want to leave, please be sure to get fully KYC (Know Your Customer), so I need a picture scan of your passport, your living address and a picture from you also showing your email adress, so I can see, that it is really you, who want to have all your posts removed, so that no hacker, who might have compromised your email account, can claim, they want to take down all of your postings...
Many thanks for your understanding.
Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 15, 2019, 01:34:01 AM
   Stefan:   How about just a picture, of the 3 watt led aimed right at the camera, with another led connected to the grid source, next to it.   That way we can at least get an idea, of just how bright the first led actually is. As leds will light on peanuts.    Funny that when it comes to showing the results, everyone, well, gets cold feet, if you know what I mean.
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 15, 2019, 02:51:19 AM
Wow Nick, he barely mentioned this and you are already judging him. Like I said, it really doesn't matter if 100 people said the same thing or showed you anything, you will just say such things.
I told you guys that my customers don't care for the groups. Why would they want to be just attacked by you? What do they owe you that you make so many demands and then just insult people when you don't get what you want? Let people show what they want and leave them be.
You guys really ruined things for yourselves, because rudeness and attacks only drives people away. But patience, politeness and demonstrating a constructive spirit only invites people to share more. Notice whenever you were polite I shared more with you. But then you just come back with deceitful statements and games. What do you really expect, people to cast their pearls before the swine when they will only trample on them. You are already judging this guy the first chance you get.

So if this discussion is going to work, you have to stop all this being a control freak. There are no rules here as you keep implying. If you want the claim rule just go to OUR and wait for years before any claim is allowed. But here just because someone say I have OU does not mean they have to become some slave of someone else. You guys have effectively driving any good people away from this forum with these attitudes and demands. So maybe that is on purpose so that no one shares anything good. Not so on the private groups where people are supportive and for each other's good and patient. Here it is attack, assume, demand. Remember, anything shared is a gift. And if it is OU then it is very special and worth millions. It is true that people are often mistaken, but that should not be assumed. I know that you guys know I am not mistaken and you know I have demonstrated these things to many people. So obviously something else is going on. But all I'm saying is if you really want people to share anything with you then leave them alone and let them share what they want to share in their own time and way. If I prefer to show the output in a different form of energy, then that is fine. Everything doesn't always have to be about looping. As I showed the second last video, there was no loop needed. The battery just stayed the same. But no no, freak out time. Not acceptable...

The first rule of forums is to be polite.
The second rule is to not demand gifts from people or insult them if they don't give you gifts.
The third rule is to never assume demonstration claim can be proven over the internet.
The four rule is to understand that forums are just places to share ideas and clarify things.

If yo guys could just do that then there would be very little problems.


   Stefan:   How about just a picture, of the 3 watt led aimed right at the camera, with another led connected to the grid source, next to it.   That way we can at least get an idea, of just how bright the first led actually is. As leds will light on peanuts.    Funny that when it comes to showing the results, everyone, well, gets cold feet, if you know what I mean.
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 15, 2019, 03:13:20 AM
Stefan,
Do not worry about that. My posts have very thorough replies with quotes within them.

I have suggested some basic rules or guidelines in the last post. Starting with being polite and not making demands and insulting people if they don't give you what you ask for.

Rick

Well, if some people want to leave now the forum and requested to delete all their postings, it is too bad, as this would rip this interesting topic totally apart and important things would be missing , as seen from a history standpoint later seeing, who did what and who did achive what, etc.....

So I would rather want, these people to stay here and discuss out the controversy in a good manner...
I don´t acuse any members to do this on purpose, maybe they just did not get the right effects, hard to say , if I have not measured their circuits myself...or they sometimes don´t draw the right conclusion and thus not doing the right experiments and missing the important points...
Everybody is different in his perception...

So I am sorry, if my former comments pissed some members off...I apologize...!!

Also if you really want to leave, please be sure to get fully KYC (Know Your Customer), so I need a picture scan of your passport, your living address and a picture from you also showing your email adress, so I can see, that it is really you, who want to have all your posts removed, so that no hacker, who might have compromised your email account, can claim, they want to take down all of your postings...
Many thanks for your understanding.
Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 15, 2019, 04:29:09 AM
Rick pointed me to one of his students:  Here is some info on the effect of grounding.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAxB-Dtl1U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAxB-Dtl1U)



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 15, 2019, 07:20:06 AM
If the drama is over now maybe I'll share more along the lines of what people were asking about.

You will learn now why I made the kit with low power and a sensitive led to learn the importance of the subtle changes. The objective was extremely important but would be ignored and ridiculed by people who have the limited understanding of conventional theory and want to jump to conclusions. It is up to all of you who actually want to learn this to now pay attention. Do your homework.

While you guys think I am evading questions and demonstrations, I have very good reasons for everything I am doing here. For example, I intentionally have avoided getting too technical because I never want to give the impression that any of this is too difficult for common people. Too often people speak over most people's heads so that it just becomes prestige jargon. I know several of you have accused me of just being ignorant because I have always chosen to talk plainly and in the simplest language. I also avoid heavy dependence upon meters in demonstrations because I don't want to create the impression that they always have to be connected. In many cases the meters affect the processes significantly. Those who do not have OU experience will not appreciate that because they are not usually working with subtle changes.

I said that G only gave a basic theory of phasing and what is possible in a resonant tank circuit. I said there is actually a lot more to it. I didn't have time to fully address it other than just tell him to consider the results. Of course that is not satisfactory. But I realized that if I shared the following then most people would get lost. So that is why I wrote what I wrote. So that everyone could benefit from my answer, which is really all that is necessary in that debate. However, I will now explain some of my brief statements that I know you all just passed over thinking I was just rambling. I do have a reason for everything I wrote here. I also mentioned what MIT physics professor Walter Lewin said about all college text books, that they were all wrong on this subject of faraday's Law and Kirchhoff loop rule and the conservation of energy. While college level books are just oversimplifications in addressing the real world, the following book is above college level and is not the case. Unfortunately most people only have a college level physics understanding so they never learn about the bigger picture. This is specifically showing that there are other factors and forces at work than what G was claiming to be the extent of the matter. We will see exactly why he was mistaken, limiting what could be possible in a resonant tank circuit, and thus assuming always an under unity result (also why he assumed the input had to decrease with the loading). So now I will fulfill his conditions of hoping that he would learn more than just the limitations of conventional theory and find the means for believing and experiencing OU. So let me know enlarge with quotes from the following book that is one of my important text books which Lewin would have been thinking of:

Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism by TERENCE W. BARRETT (see the book on Amazon)
https://epdf.pub/topological-foundations-of-electromagnetism.html
"Maxwell’s equations are foundational to electromagnetic theory. They are the cornerstone of a myriad of technologies and are basic to the understanding of innumerable effects. Yet there are a few effects or phenomena that cannot be explained by the conventional Maxwell theory. This book examines those anomalous effects and shows that they can be interpreted by a Maxwell theory that is subsumed under gauge theory. Moreover, in the case of these few anomalous effects, and when Maxwell’s theory finds its place in gauge theory, the conventional Maxwell theory must be extended, or generalized, to a non-Abelian form."

"The tried-and-tested conventional Maxwell theory is of Abelian form. It is correctly and appropriately applied to, and explains, the great majority of cases in electromagnetism. What, then, distinguishes these cases from the aforementioned anomalous phenomena? It is the thesis of this book that it is the topology of the spatio temporal situation that distinguishes the two classes of effects or phenomena, and the topology that is the final arbiter of the correct choice of group algebra — Abelian or non-Abelian — to use in describing an effect."

Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell’s Equations
"The conventional Maxwell theory is a classical linear theory in whichthe scalar and vector potentials appear to be arbitrary and defined byboundary conditions and choice of gauge. The conventional wisdom in engineering is that potentials have only mathematical, not physical, significance. However, besides the case of quantum theory, in which it is well known that the potentials are physical constructs, there are a number of physical phenomena —both classical and quantum-mechanical— which indicate that the Aμ fields, μ=0,1,2,3, do possess physical significance as global-to-local operators or gauge fields, in precisely constrained topologies."
"A number of physical effects strongly suggest that the Maxwell field theory of electromagnetism is incomplete (too long to quote here)...."

"Formerly, treatment of the Aμ potentials as anything more than mathematical conveniences was prevented by their obvious lack of gauge invariance. 251,252 However, gauge invariance for theAμpoten-tials results from situations in which fields, firstly, have a historyof separate spatiotemporal conditioning and, secondly, are mappedin a many-to-one, or global-to-local, fashion (in holonomy). Such conditions are satisfied by Aμ potentials with boundary conditions, i.e. the usual empirically encountered situation. Thus, with the correct geometry and topology (i.e. with stated boundary conditions) the Aμ potentials always have physical meaning. This indicates that Maxwell’s theory can be extended by the appropriate use of topological and gauge-symmetrical concepts. The Aμ potentials are local operators mapping global spatio temporal conditions onto the local e.m. fields. The effect of this operation is measurable as a phase change, if there is a second, comparative mapping of differentially conditioned fields in a many-to-one (global-to-local) summation. With coherent fields, the possibility of measurement(detection) after the second mapping is maximized. The conventional Maxwell theory is incomplete due to the neglect of (1) a definition of the Aμ potentials as operators on the local intensity fields dependent on gauge, topology, geometry and global boundary conditions; and of (2) a definition of the constitutive relations between medium-independent fields and the topology of the medium.b Addressing these issues extends the conventional Maxwell theory to cover physical phenomena which cannot be presently explained by that theory."

"the A field was banished from playing the central role in Maxwell’s theory and relegated to being a mathematical (but not physical) auxiliary. This banishment took place during the interpretation of Maxwell’s theory by the Maxwellians,12i.e. chiefly by Heaviside, Fitzgerald, Lodge and Hertz."

"Both Heaviside and Poynting agreed that the function of a wire is as a sink into which energy passes from the medium (ether) and is convected into heat. For them, wires conduct electricity with the Poynting vector pointing at right angles to the conducting wire (cf. Ref. 19, Sec. 27-5). The modern conventional view on conduction in wires is similar, but modern theory is not straightforward about where this energy goes, yet still retains Poynting’s theorem. The energy flows, not through a current-carrying wire itself, but through the medium (ether) around it — or, rather, through whatever energy-storing substance a modern theorist imagines exists in the absence of the ether."

"But all dynamics were banished by Hertz. Hertz banished even the stresses and strains of the medium (ether) and was vigorously opposed in this by the British Maxwellians.12 Hertz even went far beyond his mentor, Helmholtz, in his austere operational formulation. Nonetheless, the Hertz orientation finally prevailed, and the modern “Maxwell theory” is today a system of equations describing electrodynamics which has lost its dynamical basis."

"1.  Introduction
There are a number of reasons for questioning the completeness of the conventionally interpreted Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. It is well known that there is an arbitrariness in the definition of the A vector and scalar potentials, which, nevertheless, have been found very useful when used in calculations with boundary conditions known.253 The reasons for questioning completeness are due to experimental evidence (Sec. 3), theoretical (Sec. 4) and pragmatic(Sec. 5)."
The evidence is too lengthy and technical to quote here...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 15, 2019, 11:40:25 AM
Hi Guys,first many thanks to Rick for all his great work and publishing it for free here !
Well, a friend of mine has also his Resonance Kit and he got it to work in OU mode...
So, also he mentioned to me, that some posters over here seem to
deliberately make bad videos that do not work !

So here seem to be now very many trolls, who are trying to combat free energy for what ever reasons they have...

So to the other people I can only say, don´t trust everything you see here, if some experimenters do videos
and say, it does not work... Better try it yourself !

Also this way, you can learn much more from it, than only watching videos from others, who might also
have bad or broken measurement equipment or no good scope or wrong adjusted scope heads, etc, etc...

But my friend will send me a video, so I can see, what he has done so far with the Kit from Rick.

Stay tuned.

Many thanks again to Rick Friedrich for his great work !

Regards, Stefan ( Admin).


Hi Stefan. I am very surprised by your comment here. After all these years of many people
claiming to have a COP > 1 here, and time and time again of it turning out to be mistaken claims
due to many people who make such claims not understanding even the basics of making proper measurements,
or people just being very delusional, or scammers, you of all people should know that what the majority claim is 'OU' is actually
nothing of the kind, and the other remaining small percentage are usually things that can't be checked out fully due to missing
important details.

If someone hasn't self-looped the circuit and got it self-sustaining, then that person is in no reasonable position at all to be
making claims about 'OU'. There are just too many ways that a person can go wrong even in the rare case where that person
has some decent understanding about making proper measurements and also understands well the many pitfalls which can
be encountered in doing proper measurements. To call members here with many years of experience in this 'OU' experimentation
area 'trolls' for pointing out the very obvious flaws in Rick's claims is mind boggling to me.

Lighting up some LED bulbs without at least attempting to do proper input and output power measurements fools
a lot of people out there as LEDs are very efficient these days and only a relatively small amount of input power can make them
light up fairly brightly. This fools a lot of people out there with little experience and/or little understanding
of electronics. People here are 100% right to be very skeptical of claims where lighting of some LED bulbs is
being shown but no decent attempt is being made and shown in regards to doing self-looping testing of the setup.
The wattage rating on LED bulbs can be very misleading. Actual power consumption of the LEDs in a LED
bulb can be quite a lot lower than whatever wattage rating may be indicated on a LED bulb. I think that fools
a lot of people as well. They see some 5 Watt or 10 Watt rating on a LED bulb or whatever, and find they can
light the LEDs quite brightly at less than 1 Watt input or whatever and think that they have hit the mother lode. :)
The problem is those wattage ratings for the LED bulbs appear to be quite misleading in many cases.

It is for very good reason that people here with a lot of experience are being quite skeptical of Rick's claims, and
anyone with any reasonable amount of experience at all at this type of experimentation should be fully aware of
why self-loop testing is so critical in this area of experimentation. There have been just so many cases here and on Youtube,
etc., of people making incorrect assumptions and making improper measurements for various reasons, or leaving out important
measurements, or overlooking other important factors which are throwing off their results.

It is just too easy for people to make mistakes in measurements or to otherwise overlook important factors which are skewing
their results. If there is no reasonably done self-looping testing shown, then it is perfectly reasonable to take it as more unfounded 'OU' claims
to add to the mountain. :) People here should feel no obligation to test such unfounded claims if the claimant has not demonstrated a reasonable
self-looping test. That should really be a given here at this point. Sorry Stephan. Just pointing out the reality of the situation. Many experimenters
here have spent many many hours in the past testing many of the 'OU' claims that frequently pop up here here only to find after wasting many
hours of time and effort and expense that the person making the 'OU' claim made major mistakes in their measurements, or left out important
measurements, or made incorrect assumptions, etc. Someone having an expensive scope or expensive multimeters, etc. in no way at all
guarantees that they know how to properly use them to make proper measurements in all sorts of different situations.

If there is something to what Rick is saying, then it should stand up to self-looping testing. There are probably at least a few people here who could
help Rick with setting up such proper self-looping tests if he really wanted to understand how his setups are truly performing, but that does not appear
to be the case at all. Quite the opposite. When people here get called trolls for pointing out the obvious flaws in someone's claims, then something is
very wrong. I will fade back into the background now. I have had my say.  ;D

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 15, 2019, 01:00:30 PM
Stefan,
Thank you for your apology. I have no intention of providing you with a copy of my passport, so I guess I'm stuck here as a fully fledged member.

I take exception to being branded a troll just because, like others on this forum, I expect the presentation of good quality technical information to backup OU claims.
Anyway, like Void, I will now sink into the background for the time being to let RF continue to dominate this thread with his sermons.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 15, 2019, 02:26:39 PM
There is this statement it's a distortion of the truth, re The retired Turkish university lecturer definition.

"Both Heaviside and Poynting agreed that the function of a wire is as a sink into which energy passes from the medium (ether) and is convected into heat. For them, wires conduct electricity with the Poynting vector pointing at right angles to the conducting wire (cf. Ref. 19, Sec. 27-5). The modern conventional view on conduction in wires is similar, but modern theory is not straightforward about where this energy goes, yet still retains Poynting’s theorem. The energy flows, not through a current-carrying wire itself, but through the medium (ether) around it — or, rather, through whatever energy-storing substance a modern theorist imagines exists in the absence of the ether."

Be aware that it takes time from the moment of switch on the electron to rise to the out side if of the conductor this time can be put to good use.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 15, 2019, 02:50:09 PM
Well,
I believe what Rick has encouraged people to Bond or work together"face to Face" and share their work to advance the understanding and help each other...
Has been happening right here for quite a few years ,todays technologycan bring people face to face as if in the same room.. whether they are on separate planets or separate countries.. anywhere within cell phone range.[or a connection

Here the strong bond of like minded fellows who have been and seen all manner of claims...fellows who try to help their fellow man and live within the theme of this forum...
I believe wisdom and good intentions between this group ...peppered withoccasional Zeal for this cause [a better world]guides their actions.
if thats a Troll ??
so be it !!

and I believe 100% you can teach somebody [who really wants to learn]on the internet ...in todays world thats a face to face experienceand teaching them how to replicate an anomaly to share with others of like mind.
 1000%

end of story...
this mission statement is not a  recipe  for a better loaf of bread or biscuitsits a recipe for a better world ,and anything which can make that happen needs to be SHOUTED from the highest tower or platform we have..as if our lives depended on it [and our childrens futures..Not the time for half measures or dilly dallying ...

 and Hoppy  I'm glad they won't let you out of the asylum [I'm selfish ....and I REALLY hope our friend itsu can't escape either..
None of us are free till ALL of us are free...





Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 15, 2019, 03:02:27 PM
Ha Ha ! you said it! But be aware Shit can happen when you walk through the wards, especially if you store tools like screw drivers in back pockets.


end of story...
this mission statement is not a  recipe  for a better loaf of bread or biscuits it's a recipe for a better world ,and anything which can make that happen needs to be SHOUTED from the highest tower or platform we have..as if our lives depended on it [and our children's futures..and Hoppy  I'm glad they won't let you out of the asylum [I'm selfish ....

Re Rick presumed short for Richard, you were talking about or mentioned John Bedini's Cole - Bedini PM dc Motor or one of the many others, to cut it short it looked suitable for driving the Newman motor circuit, so I have used the circuit using 2 x Hall effect trigger circuit that drives a FW circuit with a home made PCB and a Full bridge feed back circuit, all remains is to drill the holes and assemble the board PCB shown below and lay out. I presume the pulses derived from the device do magic.
to be continued.   https://www.google.com/search?q=cole+badini+dc+motor+circuit&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CQRPN71VAtGwIjien9C7PkPeLYXQlIhSs7zFV_1wACzU9v_1y0EyWOb7NOrQnx0C0z9g1LF9kyQTtQBzbZxnHAhnUaJyoSCZ6f0Ls-Q94tEYuCWJXIMUg3KhIJhdCUiFKzvMURT7EQ58GeAIcqEglX_1AALNT2_1_1BGrDF3XbxbefioSCbQTJY5vs06tEf2WsDKnaGzoKhIJCfHQLTP2DUsRQq0nrmasmPUqEgkX2TJBO1AHNhFWDD2QERHXpSoSCdnGccCGdRonEXXxi9urgQp3&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDl-jul7fjAhUmxYUKHQBcAywQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1600&bih=753&dpr=1#imgrc=Ek_l2kgB1SZrsM:
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2019, 08:13:47 PM
Probably T, in that he deliberately was trying to trap me playing games with fake OU claims. While his videos were not replications the way he was attempting to try and trick me into a deceptive conclusion was possibly what added to it.
While there has been a steady flow of bad activity here, it certainly intensified and appeared coordinated the last few days.
Er... no. Nowhere in any of my videos posted here, or anywhere else, have I made an OU claim, much less a "fake" one.  I have displayed OU measurements, and if "someone" refuses to understand how those measurements indicate OU, or whether or not the same reasons apply to "someone's" own REAL claims of OU.... well, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him think. I think we are in a position here where, had I been one of Rick's customers, I mean students, he would gladly have said that my demonstrations indicate OU, the same kind he has. But no, I'm a contrary Koala who doesn't like to be rubbed the wrong way or lied to, or about. So RF won't touch my demos with so much as a click.

I posted three videos that directly relate to the discussions and examples in this thread, and asked "Is this OU?" And I emphasized in each video and in posts here that ALL INFORMATION, including schematics, measurements and et cetera, are available for anyone to replicate (golly how I hate that word) what is demonstrated.  What I am still trying to determine is just what is this thing that RF calls "OU", since it clearly does not correspond to Joules out > Joules in. So maybe it's a question of measurements and interpretation. But RF thinks he is being "tricked" with "Fake" videos and "Fake" claims of OU.  Paranoid much, Rick? Well, just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't out to question your very real and longstanding claims of overunity performance, which you make based on extremely questionable evidence, most of which is long in the past.

So stop being so afraid, RF, and especially stop misrepresenting my work. Of course if you don't even watch or think about what I demonstrate... how could you do other than misrepresent it? You really should try to pay more attention to your "inputs" and less to your "outputs".

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2019, 08:22:37 PM
(snip)
I find it really hard to believe that you guys have been here all these years and don't know the first thing about OU. If you do then why can't you convince G? If T is source of all wisdom and OU then why can't he convince G or anyone? Why are you guys not using the energy? Maybe you are. How are we really to know? So I am not convinced that you guys need convincing. You are just trying to pull more information out of people and then attack them for it. Same old game going on for many years now. Well at least that is obvious now.
You talking about me again? You really should do a little research before you disparage someone. YOU are acting like the source of all wisdom-- you have Students, and Customers, and you have been Teaching OU for years!! You are the Source of OU! Why cannot you convince G or anyone, except those who paid you money? LOL... you cannot show a single instance where I have _ever_ claimed to have an OU device, nor pretended to teach someone else how to make one. But you might be surprised at what I _have_ demonstrated. The difference between my demonstrations and your claims is that anyone can repeat my demos +including measurements+ for themselves. Independently Repeatable Data. You have personal anecdotes, not data, and it also appears that you have "jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but no jam today".
So we can add psychological projection to your pressure of speech and your paranoia.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2019, 08:25:40 PM
Mr Tinsel Koala:  I would be very interested in your comment on the following picture.
8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2019, 08:33:32 PM
Some facts:


Tinsel Koala does not remember so I am going to post the overunity experimental circuit done by the Ukrainian government's agricultural college.  We corresponded for some time.

Here are some of Rick's REAL CUSTOMERS in the REAL WORLD.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucvc38NCg9k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucvc38NCg9k)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXBAniR1JY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXBAniR1JY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX_rlCAFQxs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX_rlCAFQxs)


These are customers who have purchased his products.
Oh, are you talking about this thing:
(well, I did ask you to open a different thread....)
What makes you think it is overunity, or that the Ukes have had different results than I have?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 15, 2019, 08:43:26 PM
Oh, are you talking about this thing:
(well, I did ask you to open a different thread....)
What makes you think it is overunity, or that the Ukes have had different results than I have?
You have not built it correctly. You do not have the correct windings so it's not a complete  replication.  Their calculations were extremely precise. That is why they saw an anomaly which required further investigation
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2019, 08:47:11 PM
You have not built it correctly.
Yes I have.

You perhaps are confused because I tried many different configurations and the one shown in the pix may not be the one you expect to see.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 15, 2019, 08:52:35 PM
Did you make the exact number of turns they calculated?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2019, 08:54:50 PM
You have not built it correctly. You do not have the correct windings so it's not a complete  replication.  Their calculations were extremely precise. That is why they saw an anomaly which required further investigation
Uh huh. I also used wire with red enamel insulation, and performed my tests on Tuesday instead of Thursday. So clearly there is no hope at all.

If you think those variables you mention have some effect that is not evident in my construction, please point it out specifically and I'll dig up the apparatus and see if I can produce it. Otherwise you are still just blowing smoke and trying to distract. Remember that I have now twice asked you to open your own thread for this topic if you want to discuss it. Now I've asked three times.Now I've asked four times.
Now I've..... get the point?




Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 15, 2019, 08:55:55 PM
Once again you are Void of truth and sense. That is just what a suppressionist would argue. I have already disproven this and you just refuse to deal with it. So you are once again playing games as the troll you are.
Prove your claim here or move on. I have proven the opposite.

1. That a person can go wrong doesn't make your claim true. You have not shown that.
2. Any extra energy used over unity is over Unity. It's really that simple  ::)
3. Why is only electrical energy considered part of OU considerations? If I have two motors running for the price of one why is that not OU?
4. So even if someone produces a little more energy than what is understood to be unity, whether it is in electrical form or otherwise, it is still OU.
5. If I am creating 30kw of output power with 30W of input power that I don't care about, you would say that was not OU because it wasn't looped. Sure that is easy to loop but you get the point that the looping has nothing to do with OU.

SO LET IT BE SETTLED ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT OVER UNITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SELF-LOOPING. THAT IS A DIFFERENT IDEA. STOP PLAYING WORD GAMES. SELF-SUSTAING IS NOT OU EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN HAVE OU THAT IS SELF-SUSTAINING/LOOPING.

Any repeating of this is distracting from Over Unity research and considerations. This kind of trickery has been one of the biggest hinderances to get people from experiencing some form of OU on all these forums. What a major psychological ploy against this community! The other one is promoting the idea that you can prove some claim or disprove some claim over the internet. These two points are settled now, whether you like that or not.

If someone hasn't self-looped the circuit and got it self-sustaining, then that person is in no reasonable position at all to be making claims about 'OU'. There are just too many ways that a person can go wrong even in the rare case where that person has some decent understanding about making proper measurements and also understands well the many pitfalls which can be encountered in doing proper measurements. To call members here with many years of experience in this 'OU' experimentation area 'trolls' for pointing out the very obvious flaws in Rick's claims is mind boggling to
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2019, 08:55:57 PM
Did you make the exact number of turns they calculated?
How many turns would you like, and can YOU show that it makes a real difference? Did the Ukes?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 15, 2019, 08:58:57 PM
   "Where is TK when we need him"?
    Well, I knew that he wasn't going to let those misleading comments go to waste.
    Thanks, TK for the replies. That does clear up some misunderstandings.

   One of the things to consider though, is the affect of the negative scope ground probe attached to the device. Does this cause a negative affect on the readings of the actual voltage and currents that normally would be present, and detectable, on a scope?
   Another thing to consider for all of us, is that when people make a rude and disrespectful comment, they can expect to see the same thing, coming back to haunt them.   I think that Rick already knows what will happen when he connects the scope to the device to read the values. In the "real world", after all those years. And that is why he will not do it, and instead continues to discredit everyone he makes a comment to, as if they are fools, and continues saying that only he knows what has to be done, to actually see OU.   So, unless Rick changes his mind, and shows us just what he is preaching about, things will not improve.   
   The picture in question, showing the lighting of many leds, is still in question, after all this time.   Is that how this will end?   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 15, 2019, 09:21:57 PM
There ae some considerations in doing Cole's circuit. You have to give enough time between the phasing or you will have problems.
This circuit was never intended to be self-sustaining but we did show a video where the one motor ran for 20 minutes off an amplifier capacitor. That would probably take under 30 seconds to normally discharge. So it is cycling around the energy like Cole wanted. It is always better to charge an external battery and rotate it, but if you want something to just go a whole lot longer then that is a simple way of doing that.

Which brings me to the point I just made in the last post to Void of truth: Why is self-looping the only thing of value to these people? This arrangement has a lot more appeal in the present world that does not believe in perpetual motion. Charging up a battery much less frequently is accepted by everyone and is a great way to disguise such free energy processes. And of course that has long been done...

Re Rick presumed short for Richard, you were talking about or mentioned John Bedini's Cole - Bedini PM dc Motor or one of the many others, to cut it short it looked suitable for driving the Newman motor circuit, so I have used the circuit using 2 x Hall effect trigger circuit that drives a FW circuit with a home made PCB and a Full bridge feed back circuit, all remains is to drill the holes and assemble the board PCB shown below and lay out. I presume the pulses derived from the device do magic.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 15, 2019, 09:30:17 PM
 You know with all the brains on this site I am sure we could do something constructive.  Instead it's one faction against another faction all the time.  It's just sad folks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 15, 2019, 09:33:35 PM
Void of Truth,
I don't need help with self-looping. I have been doing that for 15 years now. You have entirely missed what OU is as I have pointed out.
I have long demonstrated self-looping. Everyone has long been invited to see public demonstrations. Even in Germany I invited Stefan to come 5 years back. I have also worked with many EEs and engineers all over the world, some of them at the very top of the ladder in the biggest companies and military. So your condescending words don't change that fact. These people can obviously do measurements to the satisfaction of their respective companies and all EEs. But they are not such fools as to think that could be proven over the internet.
What you write sounds like it has substance until people realize that you are talking about doing this in a scifi movie reality show. You are not talking about the real world. I live and test in the real world. You just play games behind a screen.
I understand how my systems work, you don't. I see them working for years with or without batteries. Batteries get better over time, with real gains in capacity. I guess I can't believe that until you make a video showing your meter on it. hmmm sounds a little unreasonable.
I never came here to prove anything. You want proof of something. Get off the computer and have a good look in the mirror and ask yourself why you call yourself Void!

If there is something to what Rick is saying, then it should stand up to self-looping testing. There are probably at least a few people here who could help Rick with setting up such proper self-looping tests if he really wanted to understand how his setups are truly performing, but that does not appear to be the case at all. Quite the opposite. When people here get called trolls for pointing out the obvious flaws in someone's claims, then something is very wrong. I will fade back into the background now. I have had my say.  ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 15, 2019, 09:39:22 PM
   Rick:   To answer your question about why self running is the only way to prove anything. Because there has been many many many supposed OU devices that have been posted, here and on youtube which are not working as claimed. Therefore the doubts.
   We are not expecting you to "prove" anything, but, we are expecting you to be able to tell us what exactly needs to be done,  instead.  By SHOWING IT YOURSELF, TO US.  So that we can decide what to actually do about it. You have NOT done that.
   Other than the schematic and pictures and videos presented by itsu, none of your diagrams showing all the information has been made public. Like coil sizes, turn counts, capacitors, wires sizes, frequency values, and output readings. No wonder that we are confused as to what you are doing, and how you are doing it. If all this mystery is about dimly lighting a few leds, well, I think that you get my point. At least the guys here, understand where I'm coming from. Although, you may chose not to.
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 15, 2019, 09:55:08 PM
You know with all the brains on this site I am sure we could do something constructive.  Instead it's one faction against another faction all the time.  It's just sad folks.

   a.king:  One faction against another faction, all the time? There was NO factions at all fighting with each other, until Rick started insulting everyone. This is about disrespect, which is not allowed here. Yet, because this thread has become so popular now, Stefan has allowed what normally he would not allow. The missing link is trust. Who and what to trust and respect. Someone who insults you if you ask questions? Are we to trust and replicate someone's device, that won't show what is needed? Just says, buy the kit so you can learn about resonance. I'm not here to prove anything. He says that to an open source forum, which is all about PROVING results.  So, where do we go from here?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 15, 2019, 10:04:56 PM
   a.king:  One faction against another faction, all the time? There was NO factions at all fighting with each other, until Rick started insulting everyone. This is about disrespect, which is not allowed here. Yet, because this thread has become so popular now, Stefan has allowed what normally he would not allow. The missing link is trust. Who and what to trust and respect. Someone who insults you if you ask questions? Are we to trust and replicate someone's device, that won't show what is needed? Just says, buy the kit so you can learn about resonance. I'm not here to prove anything. He says that to an open source forum, which is all about PROVING results.  So, where do we go from here?


Listen very carefully.  Rick explains everything in his long videos. It is all there. Where the origins of OU started. Where the patents are. Where the energy is coming from.  You are like a student who did not turn up for lessons and wonders why you don't get anywhere.  You are like a student who has failed his exams and is screaming at the teacher and calling him useless.  Not one person who has a go at Rick can be bothered to watch his videos and take notes.  I just don't get it.  I really don't.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 15, 2019, 10:16:38 PM
    Listen carefully:  I have watched his long drawn out videos, and still don't know all the details that I mentioned in my last post. It's hard to watch a two hour video, and harder yet to have to watch 3 hour videos, about his opinions, without careful measurement to go along with it. But, I did watch it. LOL.   Yet, you say "it's all there". Really?
    So, A, now that you know all that needs to be done and are familiar with his devices, videos, and chats, and are up to speed, why don't you show the results. Like itsu has done. Perhaps you can show some actual gains. That would help. As most of us have watched at least his more relevant videos, and still don't get it. But, getting it, is not the same showing it working as a OU device.
   Kapanadze also has a patent. Did that help to produce a working replication? He also talked about the cause of free energy, yet, no one can replicate what he has shown many different times, as yet. So, perhaps you can tell us what is missing? And show some gains that can be measured and replicated. As battery swaps and noisy motor devices are NOT what this thread is about.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: web000x on July 15, 2019, 11:10:24 PM
There ae some considerations in doing Cole's circuit. You have to give enough time between the phasing or you will have problems.
This circuit was never intended to be self-sustaining but we did show a video where the one motor ran for 20 minutes off an amplifier capacitor. That would probably take under 30 seconds to normally discharge. So it is cycling around the energy like Cole wanted. It is always better to charge an external battery and rotate it, but if you want something to just go a whole lot longer then that is a simple way of doing that.

Which brings me to the point I just made in the last post to Void of truth: Why is self-looping the only thing of value to these people? This arrangement has a lot more appeal in the present world that does not believe in perpetual motion. Charging up a battery much less frequently is accepted by everyone and is a great way to disguise such free energy processes. And of course that has long been done...


[/font]Void of Truth,I don't need help with self-looping. I have been doing that for 15 years now. You have entirely missed what OU is as I have pointed out. I have long demonstrated self-looping. Everyone has long been invited to see public demonstrations. Even in Germany I invited Stefan to come 5 years back. I have also worked with many EEs and engineers all over the world, some of them at the very top of the ladder in the biggest companies and military. So your condescending words don't change that fact. These people can obviously do measurements to the satisfaction of their respective companies and all EEs. But they are not such fools as to think that could be proven over the internet. What you write sounds like it has substance until people realize that you are talking about doing this in a scifi movie reality show. You are not talking about the real world. I live and test in the real world. You just play games behind a screen. I understand how my systems work, you don't. I see them working for years with or without batteries. Batteries get better over time, with real gains in capacity. I guess I can't believe that until you make a video showing your meter on it. hmmm sounds a little unreasonable. I never came here to prove anything. You want proof of something. Get off the computer and have a good look in the mirror and ask yourself why you call yourself Void!
[/font]


Hello Rick,


In an attempt to clear up some confusion, I would like some clarification on your idea of ‘self-looping’.  I was at the 2011 Renaissance Charge Conference in Coeur D’ Alene, Idaho.  I spoke to you at one point asking you about your Bedini inspired devices.  The topic was the batteries.  I asked you if you ever had to recharge your primary batteries or if you could keep them fully charged with rotation.  You were very reluctant to tell me, but did say that you needed to top the source charge off on your batteries with an external charger on occasion.  This was only 8 years ago.  You say you’ve been self looping for 15 years.  My understanding of self looping would be a self sustaining system, no more input from you, the operator.  Can you define self looping in the context previously stated by you?  Does your definition of self looping involve adding external energy to the system on occasion?


Thanks for the clarification,


Dave
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 16, 2019, 12:02:23 AM
    Listen carefully:  I have watched his long drawn out videos, and still don't know all the details that I mentioned in my last post. It's hard to watch a two hour video, and harder yet to have to watch 3 hour videos, about his opinions, without careful measurement to go along with it. But, I did watch it. LOL.   Yet, you say "it's all there". Really?
    So, A, now that you know all that needs to be done and are familiar with his devices, videos, and chats, and are up to speed, why don't you show the results. Like itsu has done. Perhaps you can show some actual gains. That would help. As most of us have watched at least his more relevant videos, and still don't get it. But, getting it, is not the same showing it working as a OU device.
   Kapanadze also has a patent. Did that help to produce a working replication? He also talked about the cause of free energy, yet, no one can replicate what he has shown many different times, as yet. So, perhaps you can tell us what is missing? And show some gains that can be measured and replicated. As battery swaps and noisy motor devices are NOT what this thread is about.


I am thinking about if I want to get involved for the next 6 months or not.  I took a two year break and came back rusty but soon got up to speed. I am wondering whether to open up a thread on the Ukrainian Don Smith device or not. So I am thinking about it. ie Kapanadze is a Don Smith copy in my opinion
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 16, 2019, 12:33:15 AM
Here a snip from Wesley note book today  this quote from anonymous
I've been in contact with Georgia University staff in Tbilissi
so it turns out the Tabatadze family were the inventor of the device.
The Kapanadze family just stole the effect, maybe improved not sure
but what is certain via my network in republic of Georgia, it was G. Tabatadze
who first made the prototype which appear to extract energy from AIR.

On the other topic..the new thread your starting ....are you serious ? The _contrary_  Koala asked _"you"_  four ......... maybe ten times.[I couldn't hear it that well.....
I've never seen that before ...not even one time [I think]
and look at the beautiful "Uke" thingy he built ...soo much work done.... Look at that presentation !!!
Might even be a movie...?

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/1305/ (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/1305/)EDIT
and look below....the crowd gathers...would be cruel to deny the masses...they've already suffered the loss of itsu and Partzman ...and Hoppy is .................
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 16, 2019, 01:04:10 AM
TK could you please explain the what looks like shorted copper winds please
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 16, 2019, 02:49:34 AM
TK could you please explain the what looks like shorted copper winds please
Simply the top and bottom (or left and right) terminations of the coil windings. I have experimented for years for the best way to terminate high voltage, high Q helical resonators and for this particular project I tried this method, which works well. I used heavier copper for two turns on either end of the fine wire winding. This allows the fine wire winding to stay tight, without bends or kinks or sketchy terminations, and provides good contact for experiments and circuit connections.
One more time: If you want to discuss this project PLEASE somebody start another thread on it. I certainly don't want to distract from Rick's teachings in this thread.    :-X
This was almost the last thing I was working on so it is near the top of the pile of junk on my workbench. It might not be too hard to dig it up. The problem is, as mentioned earlier, it is a fairly powerful Slayer/Kacher self-resonant RF transmitter with substantial E-field component, and it will interact negatively with sensitive electronics in the vicinity, of which I have too much sensitive stuff and not very much vicinity. I have another, much more powerful and interesting thing waiting in the wings to demonstrate also, but other things have intervened and I haven't gotten a "round tuit" yet.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 16, 2019, 03:13:09 AM
You know with all the brains on this site I am sure we could do something constructive.  Instead it's one faction against another faction all the time.  It's just sad folks.
I hope you noticed that that string of 20 NE-2 neons in series with 16 of them lit up (90 volts each) was just being held by my fingers at one end, and not connected to anything at the other end. Like I said, a powerful e-field emitter that can and will wreak havoc with instrumentation. And it could be made even stronger quite easily but then I wouldn't want to run it in the house.
Is that OU?


Back to my three videos and the questions for RF. The first video shows a great gain in VARs over input power in Watts. The phase shift measurement that _indicated_ in phase was an error introduced by the current measuring method I demonstrated which introduced a phase shift of its own. I wanted to know if RF's Overunity was Overunity in VARs, and whether or not 1) he had measurements he could show of his own, and 2) whether he would point out the phase shift error as Itsu did.
The second video shows overunity measurements in the Partzman bft, and _fully accounts_ for the phase shift problem with its careful layout and use of non-inductive precision load and current sense resistors. The phase shift is evident and correctly displayed on the scopes that I and others have used, both low and high end equipment. I wanted to know if RF's Overunity was Overunity measured in power dissipated by a noninductive resistor in a situation of high, known phase shift incorporating a resonating coil as demonstrated there. Unfortunately RF has been too busy (typing and talking?) to view that very significant demonstration that most of the rest of you have seen.
The third video shows overunity in TinMan's bifilar LED driver circuit by having the load and the internal LEDs, 4 in all, shining brilliantly with ZERO current shown on two inline ammeters, even in the most sensitive 2000 microamp range. I used cheap meters but this effect has been reproduced with all kinds of meters cheap and expensive. My Fluke 87-III acts the same way and is even more sensitive. I wanted to know if RF's Overunity was this kind of Overunity, where meters indicate zero current supplied to a resonating loop but the load is still running along happily.

Three possible types of Overunity indications. But RF's is somehow different? And his measurements somehow more valid? OK, I'm willing to consider that... with evidence. Unfortunately, walls of gobbletext and anecdotes about other people's work done in the misty past do not count as evidence for me.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 16, 2019, 03:15:43 AM
TinselKoala quote"..If you want to discuss this project PLEASE somebody start another thread on it"
end quote.
https://overunity.com/18282/tks-akds-ssstc-build-discussion-investigation/new/#new (https://overunity.com/18282/tks-akds-ssstc-build-discussion-investigation/new/#new)  is this a proper tittle ?,if so I will repost all the pics and such from    your initial reference on previous page to above link .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 16, 2019, 04:03:27 AM
Nick,
I'm the worst critic of my videos. I delete them all the time. The truth is that I haven't had the time to do quality videos. Sometimes I do forget to post the schematic of what I was showing, or to bring the camera close. I have deleted a good number of videos that I made and never uploaded because they just were not good enough. I did get a proper mic however, and that was an improvement. I do show meter readings all the time, so this shows that you really haven't watched my videos. Like I said, I am making a new website right now and I'll organize the more relevant videos from those that are obsolete and just taking up space and need to be deleted.

But you have to understand that I did not do these videos for you or for people just starting out. They are me talking to customers. They want those rambles.  ::)  So it is a matter of doing something rather than nothing. I guess the point is that my videos are gifts so who can complain. If you don't want the gift then you can ignore them as you do what I write here.

The other point is that it is not my goal to prove OU in a video, or to always show the same measurements. I am dealing with many different topics. The goal is not to prove OU but show people how to maximize this. You guys keep making all these fallacies to try and discredit me. That is your only goal the last month. I rarely see anything useful from the whole lot of you. Sometimes something said is good, but somehow I am supposed to do everything I guess. I never came here to prove OU, even if someone else may have. If you are not satisfied with the information or videos then so be it!

    Listen carefully:  I have watched his videos, and still don't know all the details that I mentioned in my last post. It's hard to watch a two hour video, about his opinions, without careful measurement to go along with it. But, I did watch it. LOL.   Yet, you say "it's all there". Really?
    So, A, now that you know all that needs to be done and are up to speed, why don't you show the results. Like itsu has done. Perhaps you can show some actual gains. That would help. As most of us have watched at least his more relevant videos, and still don't get it. But, getting it, is not the same showing it working as a OU device.
   Kapanadze also has a patent. Did that help to produce a working replication? He also talked about the cause of free energy, yet, no one can replicate what he has shown many different times, as yet. So, perhaps you can tell us what is missing? And show some gains that can be measured and replicated.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 16, 2019, 04:14:14 AM
Some facts:


Tinsel Koala does not remember so I am going to post the overunity experimental circuit done by the Ukrainian government's agricultural college.  We corresponded for some time.

Here are some of Rick's REAL CUSTOMERS in the REAL WORLD.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucvc38NCg9k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucvc38NCg9k)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXBAniR1JY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXBAniR1JY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX_rlCAFQxs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX_rlCAFQxs)


These are customers who have purchased his products.
Maybe you can explain why people who have OverUnity systems running in their homes still need battery chargers. I thought you just swapped them back and forth while running the load and they "self sustain".

One of those videos shows the amazing charging of a "non rechargeable" 6 volt battery. But I have an even more amazing video for you, where I use a bedini-like motor system running on a single AAA battery to charge up a C battery.  Is that OU?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 16, 2019, 04:56:57 AM
Nick,
I'm the worst critic of my videos. I delete them all the time. The truth is that I haven't had the time to do quality videos. Sometimes I do forget to post the schematic of what I was showing, or to bring the camera close. I have deleted a good number of videos that I made and never uploaded because they just were not good enough. I did get a proper mic however, and that was an improvement. I do show meter readings all the time, so this shows that you really haven't watched my videos. Like I said, I am making a new website right now and I'll organize the more relevant videos from those that are obsolete and just taking up space and need to be deleted.

But you have to understand that I did not do these videos for you or for people just starting out. They are me talking to customers. They want those rambles.  ::)  So it is a matter of doing something rather than nothing. I guess the point is that my videos are gifts so who can complain. If you don't want the gift then you can ignore them as you do what I write here.

The other point is that it is not my goal to prove OU in a video, or to always show the same measurements. I am dealing with many different topics. The goal is not to prove OU but show people how to maximize this. You guys keep making all these fallacies to try and discredit me. That is your only goal the last month. I rarely see anything useful from the whole lot of you. Sometimes something said is good, but somehow I am supposed to do everything I guess. I never came here to prove OU, even if someone else may have. If you are not satisfied with the information or videos then so be it!

    Rick: Ok, well, I like the tone of your last comments and post. They are easier to deal with, than previously. 
     You know that I don't know all about you, what you've done, or shown, or said. But, I wonder if you know anything about me, other than being a "troll", that is. Have you looked at my videos, at all?  No? So, we are both lost in space, as far as that goes. Or what itsu has done, or TK, or Hoppy, and other replicators of these supposed free energy contraptions. What guys like me have done through the years here, also. Hoppy and I have over 8000 posts between us here, and at what we call the asylum. TK has almost twice as many posts, or even more than that, including other sites. Maybe that is not important to you, but, you must recognize that WE are not trolls, not believing in free energy, and doing what we can to disrupt it, when possible. Just the opposite.
     I have recommended that you make a video, for us. Not for your customers, clients, or those that you've deal with before, this time.   Will you do that, for us?  Please... 
   And yes, showing updated improved scope close-ups, and output readings, as mentioned by the other guys, here. So, that we can see the scope readings, with all the bulbs facing the camera this time.  I'm sure that would please everyone following you on this venture. As that video would be for us. And anyone else interested.
   You see, I have watched your videos. But you haven't watched mine, or I'd know it. 
   The idea is not to prove or disprove anything, but just to observe the results. That's all. That is what I try to do on my videos.  And TK does with his, "is this OU".  No claims, just showing what is happening. No need to get personal, or judgemental. 
   I am not blind, or dumb, and can see that you MAY have something there, worth pursuing.   
   Pura Vida,           
                   NickZ   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 16, 2019, 05:44:06 AM
Dave, I would be interested to know your last name. I know many Daves.

I wouldn't have been reluctant at all with that question. Maybe you mixed the question with something else. I did not say that as I have not had to top off the primary battery. Maybe I said that some people have occasionally done that. There are various ways of making the fan system and some of them would require that to fully sustain rotation. No, I said in the earliest years, already by early 2005 I had already solved my energy needs. I even showed some of the old systems I had run continuously at that very meeting. I do still sell the DVDs of that meeting where I shared that. So you must of missed that and misunderstood whatever was said. The one example was an old multicolor ceiling fan that I had run all summer back and forth on two batteries. I just had a knifeswitch on them to rotate the batteries every 12 hours. It even had a light on it for the trigger resistance if I wanted that on during the evening. I also did a side by side comparison of an exactly the same fan with the blades at the same pitch and same speed with the AC input on the one. And my monopole fan was 3 times less energy input while I could always rotate the batteries around. This was similar to John's fan.

No, topping up a battery is not self-looped or self-running. Now long before that I had done different kinds of shuffling of energy with capacitors. I did thousands of things over the years. But I found that you really don't want to push current into batteries that way because it is not good for the batteries and is usually not very efficient. It was always better to rotate batteries around. But that is old for me, as I have talked about with the third stage process where the input battery can remain charged. I was talking about that on my forums from time to time but only a few people understood that, like my one student in the video I posted the other week. So really we were doing that back in 2005, and after that I just went bigger to the lawnmower and cars and boats. Even though I could do advanced things, I always had some basic setups that I continuously demonstrated to the public so that they could really see the basic system could do a lot. When I did the lawnmower people could not believe it. The monopole motor version didn't have a lot of power obviously, but it was a portable generator that I did go up a fair size hill where I lived when the batteries had sat all winter and were fully discharged. Mind you I had to rotate them several times in that parade I went through. But that was impressive. But the window motor on that lawnmower had real power, and that later went into the boat. The boat was run for three years with just rotating the batteries around. All these and many more were so the public could see this and it would be easy to replicate. Nothing hidden, no advanced circuits.

So as I said, to have a one battery back popper was more involved and not as good for the batteries. It required fine tuning and a third winding in most cases. Apparently I don't have OU unless I have that. So running a boat for three years is not OU to some people here. Charging a massive bank of batteries with a small system where you are seeing 200+ times the output over time is not OU unless you are looping around. Well, I haven't got a clear response for anyone here if rotating batteries is acceptable as OU.

Hello Rick,
In an attempt to clear up some confusion, I would like some clarification on your idea of ‘self-looping’.  I was at the 2011 Renaissance Charge Conference in Coeur D’ Alene, Idaho.  I spoke to you at one point asking you about your Bedini inspired devices.  The topic was the batteries.  I asked you if you ever had to recharge your primary batteries or if you could keep them fully charged with rotation.  You were very reluctant to tell me, but did say that you needed to top the source charge off on your batteries with an external charger on occasion.  This was only 8 years ago.  You say you’ve been self looping for 15 years.  My understanding of self looping would be a self sustaining system, no more input from you, the operator.  Can you define self looping in the context previously stated by you?  Does your definition of self looping involve adding external energy to the system on occasion?
Thanks for the clarification,
Dave
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 16, 2019, 06:40:23 AM
Nick,
Those were nicer words than usual for you. I don't know your videos because how would I? I don't even know your name or where to look. But I do have a lot of experience on forums since the beginning of the internet as we now know it. I was owner of many groups and moderator. And I have a very wide network of friends all over the world who read these forums. I have a good idea of the tricks people play and agendas. Some of you guys are more obvious than others. Yeah some people just have personality issues, I get it. But I see the subtle things happening. I see that these forums are all hacked. They are useless because no matter what people do your type of guys will always be filling up pages with things that go nowhere. Why not build upon what you know about OU and just pass on what you know. I have always done that since 2004. So you guys here and on OUR can't get one replication finalized? That is ridiculous. I really doubt that after all this time you don't have OU. Because it isn't that hard considering the knowledge you have form this forum alone. So it is obvious that you are just data mining in wanting people to work for you for free. That's fine, but then you turn around and attack them after they gift you such information. You act like you don't believe something but you actually do know it is true. Obviously there are a lot of crazies and mistaken people as well. But not everyone. But your type just ruins something that could be so much better. The forums that have policy of requiring people to be polite are far better. I really can't understand why rudeness is tolerated.

Now I don't spend all this time writing for you at all Nick. It is for other people who are reading this. And I am organizing all of this for a reason so people can understand these games and how people respond. I wouldn't do a single video for you Nick. All you will do is twist anything. You go back and forth from saying a nice or ok thing to vicious attack and mocking. I know exactly what it is. It is trolling. I exposed it here and you guys flipped out.  The fact that you have so many posts makes everyone wonder what you have been doing all this time then. That is consistent with a Troll who is here for the longterm to ensure that OU never goes anywhere. If someone says something good, you will just drown it out with diversions, rudeness, or whatever it takes to get ride of them.

I don't do videos for forums. I do videos for customers and for people who not only ask for them but benefit from them. You insult and say nothing good about my videos. Why would I do another. Everything you ask for is in my videos. Give me another week to finish up my organizing of my videos on the new page and you will be able to see the more important ones. Even the video I posted here was not for you guys but for the first meeting I had in NC, as I only showed the second group it running and I wanted to show the first group what it was like running.

The point is Nick, no matter what I do, you will still say some diverting thing. You don't care about real world demonstrations. Everyone knows that I have done many real world demonstrations. You don't care about them, but what cyberworld demonstrations. I have given many of those as well. And I gave you just enough to test you out. Yes I did the video for others, but I did the bulbs just bright enough to get these exact reactions out of you. And it shows everyone your double standard. You can talk all day long about LEDs being useless for indicating anything, but that would be the case for the tiny ones. These big ones are not able to be bright at all when you divide them by the input. I was forcing you guys to misjudge me in doing that. Anyone who works with those LEDs know that if you believed a video was not faked then that video would prove OU in the right sense of the terms. Yes I could have put a meter there, but I wanted to show you that you don't always have to have a meter to see OU. I really don't care what you think of me for doing that. But I know what many more people watching this thread are telling me about all this. Everyone can see who won these debates here. It is the one calling for realism, that is proof in the real world, rather than unverifiable measurements in fantasy land.

Like I said, if people were genuinely polite and earnest in their search for OU I would share more to help them personally. And many times I deal with them privately. I talk on the phone many hours a day with these people. But you guys are hear to mock and disprove and twist and gas  :o I posted that important book from Barrett last night. I spent a long time doing that for all of you. That is fundamental. It is exactly what I am talking about. I answered G there finally. You all thought that I was just avoiding that subject. But I had to get the time to do that as it took some hours. That is the foundation for OU. The historical foundation for why it has been suppressed. The mathematically reason why it is suppressed. And the evidence amount to proof for OU. You won't look at that. You won't want to admit what it proves. You don't want to see that THAT was the reason why I made the kit as I did with the small leds. You just want OU you say to us. But you don't want to learn what is the reason for it. I have been showing these things Barrett and Kron wrote about all those years ago. The things Tesla was doing way before that. I have done the very large OU demonstrations. But now is the time to learn the subtle details, because when it comes to RF you can't afford to not know these subtle details. Do you really think I could be fine with people getting hurt?

I still have to process a 3+ hour video before I do any more, and that one doesn't have meters on it. I have a lot of work to do on the new website, so I will not be able to do another video for a few weeks. I have no interest in trying to prove something with meters. If I show meters it is for explaining something specifically, but not to prove OU. If I did a meter shot in a way that you would assume OU then I would be encouraging the idea that people should believe videos. So now I see you are finally getting it: "The idea is not to prove or disprove anything, but just to observe the results." Very good.

Actually, I have only every let my customers share their observations. That is how my battery chargers and kits sell. I don't advertise. So I let people tell others what they have discovered. I don't do anything in this work but what good people ask for. They don't ask me ever to try and prove OU on the video. Just, can you sell this? Can you talk about this? I show scope shots all the time, and usually have the amp meter and volt meters on.

Anyway, the new website should be of value.

    Rick: Ok, well, I like the tone of your last comments and post. They are easier to deal with, than previously. 
     You know that I don't know all about you, what you've done, or shown, or said. But, I wonder if you know anything about me, other than being a "troll", that is. Have you looked at my videos, at all?  No? So, we are both lost in space, as far as that goes. Or what itsu has done, or TK, or Hoppy, and other replicators of these supposed free energy contraptions. What guys like me have done through the years here, also. Hoppy and I have over 8000 posts between us here, and at what we call the asylum. TK has almost twice as many posts, or even more than that, including other sites. Maybe that is not important to you, but, you must recognize that WE are not trolls, not believing in free energy, and doing what we can to disrupt it, when possible. Just the opposite.
     I have recommended that you make a video, for us. Not for your customers, clients, or those that you've deal with before, this time.   Will you do that, for us?  Please... 
   And yes, showing updated improved scope close-ups, and output readings, as mentioned by the other guys, here. So, that we can see the scope readings, with all the bulbs facing the camera this time.  I'm sure that would please everyone following you on this venture. As that video would be for us. And anyone else interested.
   You see, I have watched your videos. But you haven't watched mine, or I'd know it. 
   The idea is not to prove or disprove anything, but just to observe the results. That's all. That is what I try to do on my videos.  And TK does with his, "is this OU".  No claims, just showing what is happening. No need to get personal, or judgemental. 
   I am not blind, or dumb, and can see that you MAY have something there, worth pursuing.   
   Pura Vida,           
                   NickZ   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 16, 2019, 06:45:06 AM
Most of my customers are those who only have the battery chargers and not the motor kits. Why would you assume that? Actually for several years Renaissance was only the chargers so those old videos were at that time. 

Maybe you can explain why people who have OverUnity systems running in their homes still need battery chargers. I thought you just swapped them back and forth while running the load and they "self sustain".

One of those videos shows the amazing charging of a "non rechargeable" 6 volt battery. But I have an even more amazing video for you, where I use a bedini-like motor system running on a single AAA battery to charge up a C battery.  Is that OU?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 16, 2019, 07:36:33 AM
  Rick:   
  Can we just dispence with personal issues and focus on this project? For once.   I can see that you know nothing about me, nor the rest of us that you are still considering as trolls. Ok, no problem. I am done pleading. You won the debate, I forfit.   I can see when I am waisting my time.    I have provided my full name to you as can be found on youtube. Some of the other guys on this forum, can be found there as well But, you won't look, to see what we've done or anything about us.And considering that you won't "do videos for forums, I think that pretty much sums it up.   No further questions. Thanks for your kind reply. I will not trouble you again, as I can see that you are just much too busy to cooperate with "guys like me". I understand now.     NickZ
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 16, 2019, 07:46:08 AM
T,
Like I said, you just showed up with a video link and a question. It was purposely a trick question. I don't play such games. If it had been one of the other guys who had spent a lot of time discussing things that would have been different. But you just expected way too much and then were so offended and even attacked me for that. You still are overstating this drama that you created. You then even try to trap me in a riddle. You still are trying to make too much out of videos. You then say later that I needed to watch other videos to see more details. That's just the point, you really never know what people are doing fully, because we are not there. Measurements are limited in videos. Yeah you can show a few things, but asking whether it was OU missed the whole ongoing debate. I had just settled the point that you can't prove OU over the internet, then you mysteriously show up asking if a video proves OU. Looks like purposeful timing. Again, your insistence that I watch your videos and how important you are, did not encourage me to take you seriously. Maybe you once had something important to show, but since you dropped by I haven't seen anything but illegitimate pride or ego and constant attack. Since you were not even here most of the time it was really out of place. Nick and others I could tolerate, but you are something else  :-\

As for my OU, not sure what you even refer to. Did I try and prove OU with a video? Did you not read the title? Just because I don't try and prove OU in videos or through a Forum, doesn't mean that I can't teach and help people experience OU through information sharing. That way there can be "Confirmation of OU devices and claims, but that personally in the real world. Hey Joe, I did this and that. OK Bill, I may try that sometime. Do you have to make forums more than that? Why so serious? Why so assuming? Why so demanding? Why not just share ideas and be thankful for others sharing in this research? We all make claims, why get so bent out of shape about it? Just take a downer and chill  8)

If you read Barretts book I posted you will learn more about advanced processes that relate to what I am doing. I am teaching people to become aware of such things with very subtle changes in special relationships. You are talking about primary level ideas as if that is the whole picture of reality. You don't yet understand what is necessary for OU to even happen. If you do then you don't act like it.

So if you are the man and wisdom with die with you, then explain to us all how Barrett is wrong and all his referenced evidence is wrong? If you can't then tell my why my coil relationships would not actually demonstrate exactly what he pointed out, which was what conventional theory was deliberately ignoring (which was illustrated in the kinds of things you and G were focused on)? If you were really serious then you would do some real homework and consider all those facts. I'm sure G is at least reading that and pondering it. It may take a month before he comments about it, or maybe he won't. But I really don't expect you to take such things seriously. He is only a leading electrodynamicist.

I hope you noticed that that string of 20 NE-2 neons in series with 16 of them lit up (90 volts each) was just being held by my fingers at one end, and not connected to anything at the other end. Like I said, a powerful e-field emitter that can and will wreak havoc with instrumentation. And it could be made even stronger quite easily but then I wouldn't want to run it in the house.
Is that OU?
Back to my three videos and the questions for RF. The first video shows a great gain in VARs over input power in Watts. The phase shift measurement that _indicated_ in phase was an error introduced by the current measuring method I demonstrated which introduced a phase shift of its own. I wanted to know if RF's Overunity was Overunity in VARs, and whether or not 1) he had measurements he could show of his own, and 2) whether he would point out the phase shift error as Itsu did.
The second video shows overunity measurements in the Partzman bft, and _fully accounts_ for the phase shift problem with its careful layout and use of non-inductive precision load and current sense resistors. The phase shift is evident and correctly displayed on the scopes that I and others have used, both low and high end equipment. I wanted to know if RF's Overunity was Overunity measured in power dissipated by a noninductive resistor in a situation of high, known phase shift incorporating a resonating coil as demonstrated there. Unfortunately RF has been too busy (typing and talking?) to view that very significant demonstration that most of the rest of you have seen.
The third video shows overunity in TinMan's bifilar LED driver circuit by having the load and the internal LEDs, 4 in all, shining brilliantly with ZERO current shown on two inline ammeters, even in the most sensitive 2000 microamp range. I used cheap meters but this effect has been reproduced with all kinds of meters cheap and expensive. My Fluke 87-III acts the same way and is even more sensitive. I wanted to know if RF's Overunity was this kind of Overunity, where meters indicate zero current supplied to a resonating loop but the load is still running along happily.

Three possible types of Overunity indications. But RF's is somehow different? And his measurements somehow more valid? OK, I'm willing to consider that... with evidence. Unfortunately, walls of gobbletext and anecdotes about other people's work done in the misty past do not count as evidence for me.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 16, 2019, 08:11:57 AM
Nick,
How am I supposed to know your youtube channel? I don't remember your full name, nor have I tried to find people's YouTube channel by names given here. When I search for people like that I usually see many same names, so that would be a waste of time. You're kind of assuming in that. You should try to not assume people can read your mind like that. Maybe if you said, hey Rick check out my channel for such and such reason! But when you have been so rude I'm not sure why you would expect that. I watch a lot of videos and probably would have looked at a few if I understood why. I know people have mentioned videos here and there, but I really didn't have the time when I was addressing so many questions. Can't do everything man.

Nick, it's not that I won't do videos for this forum, but not for some people that are just going to mock me no matter what. I certainly will never do videos for people who rudely demand gifts. That's the biggest insult. Nor will I fall for the trap of trying to prove something with a video. That is really what you are asking for. If you had all been polite and constructive then I probably would have done MORE videos with meters on them. But you guys have serious mistakes here that I addressed. So I wanted to see this through, because I am a thorough person. I will always surprise you when you least expect it. I did that and no one picked up on it. I gave you an extremely important scope shot as a test and yet most of you condemn me for not giving you a meter shot. I gave you one but because you did not bother to care about what I did show you I just observed all this needless hype, abuse, and folly. So if you want to move forward, then move backwards and figure out when I shared that scope shot. It is not in the last video I uploaded, but it relates to another before it... You guys were so eager to accuse and even say I don't use meters that I just laughed. If you can appreciate meters then you may have learned something rather important with observing. Something that would help you learn something advanced in this research. You all think I don't use meters and don't understand anything. That's fine. You would have said Faraday was ignorant and a fool I suppose. I think he passed all of us. Anyway, I have shared things here that have been very significant. You guys passed over them in your demands and mocking. I'm not going to repeat it. The silent readers may have picked them up. But I will continue to say now, that I have given significant scope shot reading whenever you mock me for not doing so. I don't think you will even understand it if you saw it. Let's just say that when I took that shot and posted it on the internet the demonstrator said to me, 'maybe you shouldn't show that'. ….

  Rick:   Can we just dispence with personal issues and focus on this project? For once.I can see that you know nothing about me, nor the rest of us that you are still considering as trolls. Ok, no problem. I am done pleading. You won the debate, I forfit.
  I can see when I am waisting my time. I have provided my full name to you as can be found on youtube. Along with most of the other guys on this forum. But, you won't look, to see what we've done or anything about us.And considering that you won't "do videos for this forum",  I think that pretty much sums it up.No further questions. Thanks for your kind reply. I will not trouble you again, as I can see that you are just too buzy to cooperate with "guys like me".
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 16, 2019, 09:12:19 AM
Nick,
I don't think I answered this post, but I noticed a few things here.
I'm not sure how you can always determine that claims are not working. As someone who has worked with many replicators in the real world I see how people easily make mistakes. That is why I keep saying you can't do much with a video. It is easy to miss things. Even what you think you see is sometimes different, because of what you assume. There are several Don Smith pictures that some of you have been looking at for years and you still don't see what is staring at you because you assume you see something. But when I carefully inspected ever detail of Don's words, videos and pictures in my replicating of many of his setups, I noticed things like that that made significant differences. Prejudice prevents success. In the same way people can miss things in videos because of assumptions. Or you may not know all of the details, which is always true with a video.

It is only right to have doubts. You should always have doubts. Evidence is not proof. Only that degree of evidence is proof that demands rational conviction. Self-running in a video is not self-running in the real world. It is merely uncertain. You are all looking for video confirmation of something metered or self-running. But it is far more important to know exactly how someone is doing something. Teaching how to is what matters. That is what I do. That is why I am making the free energy cheat sheet right now. You guys can content yourself with reading the specs on fluke meters while others will be looking at the principles of free energy. I showed a very important principle yesterday with Barrett. If you pass over that then expect to remain here in diapers for another 10 years. Again, that was showing you how it is to be done. Showing you how the truth was discovered and then suppressed. Showing you it being demonstrated. I have DONE that.
Remember, YOU, are not my computer screen. If you me to show YOU something, then that has to be in the REAL world.  ::) And I DO THAT all the time.
I made a kit to help people in the real world. Some people were excited about it and mentioned it here. Apparently you guys had problems with him. Idk because I wasn't here. I didn't make the kit public. I told him not to post it or bother with these forums. I never wanted to post such information on the forums. Someone else did that. Somehow Itsu started doing something. He said he never read anything more than a few lines. He showed extreme prejudice against me but yet was supposedly trying to replicate something you all were attributing to me. I had seen enough of his videos and posts before I joined in here to realize that he was really off. I shared my concerns with Aking but he thought he could succeed. I knew he never would for several reasons revealed. His saying he never read me more than the first line added to that doubt. So his failing to discover anything significant was not surprising, but somehow it was confirmation that nothing was happening in my kit, which he really knew nothing about. You guys made many conclusions because of his misunderstandings and ignorance. This is not an insult as he showed in his videos that all this was new to him. But you all were the blind leading the blind. So I came on here and within a short time it was just attacks. I confront that and your assumptions and I get evasions and more attacks and demands for proof as if I was pushing something on you or demanding you to believe my claims. You misjudged my kit as if the soul purpose was to prove OR or that it had to be a self-looped system or it was worthless. The problem is that you don't understand what you need to know. I don't know if you know anything about OU, but it appears from your reaction and demands that you don't. You don't know what you have been shown already. So you are either playing troll games or you really don't know anything about free energy.
Now I have shown all the information publicly. You just didn't take the time to notice. Yet you feel justified to make that false statement. You could have asked me if that was so. I did say so already. The thing is I have mentioned several different systems here, which I have made public for many years. That is online and in the real world. And as a result thousands of people have replicated them. So where have you been?

Now, to switch gears here. Some years back I did write Stefan that these forums are all wrong. What needs to happen is that you start with a working system in clarity and then go from there, and not the other way around starting from a rumor or guess. I guess that is the intention of OUR but obviously they have never started yet because there is not one OU system working for them. I have already done this through youtube and now thousands of people are personally using one such system very happily. I started demonstrating it to tens of thousands of students at all the major Colleges across the USA 14 years ago before youtube. Sometimes I had crowds of up to 2000 people standing around as I spoke to them in the free speech zone where the crazy campus preachers spread their hate and propaganda. I demonstrated this system and science majors could not accept it. But they ran and got their meters and dead batteries. Sometimes I talked to these skeptics for hours. I usually debated the lead atheists who would start off mocking me because they assumed I was like the crazy preachers. But in the end every one of them shook my hand in gratitude for the dialogue because I was once one of them and I took the time to answer their questions. But it was exciting to see the science students and professors become amazed at this system that would run all that time when they calculated that it could not do that initially. But as time went on they looked more and more puzzled at it until they became antsy. Then they were like 'how can this be'? Yes the pulled a wires, but nothing was hidden and it was so simple. This was all in the beginning in 2005. I have talked to thousands of students all across the country who knew nothing about this. But also just as many in free energy circles. So who has proved OU that much? Yet that doesn't matter to you because you only want a video over the internet. I just laugh. Well I did that many times. Many videos before youtube are still online on my old websites showing the kinds of things you ask for now. That is all so old news. So I think I know what people need in this research. I think I know a thing or two about why you guys fail all these years. I have carefully calculated what needed to be said to you. But it really wasn't for you because I expected you would not listen. I wrote all this for the silent watchers who never write on these forums for good reason. But I also know that you will right things that you do not really believe, and that I have gotten through to you. I know what it means to pretend to not listen. I did that as a kid. You put on an attitude to try and hide what you know is true and don't want to admit. That is why I am not bothered by what people say.

   Rick:   To answer your question about why self running is the only way to prove anything. Because there has been many many many supposed OU devices that have been posted, here and on youtube which are not working as claimed. Therefore the doubts.
   We are not expecting you to "prove" anything, but, we are expecting you to be able to tell us what exactly needs to be done,  instead.  By SHOWING IT YOURSELF, TO US.  So that we can decide what to actually do about it. You have NOT done that.
   Other than the schematic and pictures and videos presented by itsu, none of your diagrams showing all the information has been made public. Like coil sizes, turn counts, capacitors, wires sizes, frequency values, and output readings. No wonder that we are confused as to what you are doing, and how you are doing it. If all this mystery is about dimly lighting a few leds, well, I think that you get my point. At least the guys here, understand where I'm coming from. Although, you may chose not to.
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on July 16, 2019, 10:05:24 AM
Even video of self running device is not a proof. I bet you all watched Kapanadze videos.The only proof is many succesfull replications, which is what we are expecting here
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 16, 2019, 05:49:45 PM
Even video of self running device is not a proof. I bet you all watched Kapanadze videos.The only proof is many succesfull replications, which is what we are expecting here

Ok, one final comment. It will probably fall on a number of deaf ears.  ;D
No one with any real understanding is suggesting that self-loop testing is 'proof'.
Only that it is a way for honest people and reasonably rational people who truly want to understand how a circuit is
performing to take possible measurement errors, incorrect assumptions, and other possible factors which may be
skewing results/conclusions out of the picture.

It doesn't mean that there still couldn't be other factors skewing results of self-loop testing or that someone dishonest
still couldn't cheat. For example, if a circuit is quite low power and it is picking up radiated energy from a nearby cell tower
or whatever. (That's just a possible example. Not saying that would necessarily at all be a factor in any given test setup). 

I saw A.King state that no one being critical of Rick's claims has watched his videos, even though
I have pointed out that I have a watched quite a few of his videos over the years. Huh?

I won't go into my background, but let's just say I can usually very quickly see when someone has little to no
real understanding of electronics, and when they are talking a lot of hooey. Such people will typically go on
the defensive immediately and start insulting and attacking when anyone starts asking them legitimate questions or
points out apparent or obvious flaws in their statements and assumptions and behaviour. As a case in point, Rick has made
it clear that even though it is has been clearly explained here, that he still doesn't understand the critical importance and value
of trying to self-loop a circuit setup to see if it can be made to self-sustain. He has mixed this simple and straight-forward and
very valuable testing method all up into supposedly being some way of creating or achieving OU or something completely bizarre like that.  :o 
If a person can't understand the purpose and value of a straightforward testing method even after it has all been clearly explained to
them, what other very simple concepts and approaches are lost on them as well? Does this really need to be pointed out?

Let's get down to nitty gritty reality:
If someone really has something unusual, they should be able to demonstrate it in a clear and reasonable way.
If they truly want to understand how their circuit setup or whatever they have is really performing, they will welcome critical
feedback from others and be willing to look into and address all concerns in a reasonable manner.
They will do this because they really want to know what the actual truth is in regards to what they are experimenting
with or claiming. If after looking into and addressing all reasonable critical feedback, which actually can usually be addressed
much more quickly and simply by just trying a proper self-loop test, and the circuit is still showing something unusual then
great! You may very well be onto something! Bravo! On the other hand, if it all starts falling apart the moment you start
looking into people's concerns and start addressing them, or, as mentioned, if a person is reasonable and practical and wants
to save a lot of time and effort and actually tries a proper self-loop test and it fails, then a person who cares about reality and truth
will admit that they may very well have been making some mistakes along the way! :D

Reality Check:
Someone who cares about facts and reality will welcome reasonable critical feedback, and will make an
honest effort to address those concerns in a reasonable manner.
Someone with other motivations will immediately go on the defensive and start attacking when
critical feedback is provided and make all sorts of excuses and deflections etc., while continuing
to avoid addressing any real concerns.

If Rick really has something unusual then great, but his demonstrated behavior and inability
to understand very straightforward testing concepts is not looking at all promising in that regard.

Just keeping it real. Now back to your regularly scheduled wild claims and insults and deflections and excuses and hand waving. ;D
Look, some LED bulbs are lighting up! It has to be OU!!! No proper measurements or proper testing required.
We are much too advanced for that!!! ;D

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 16, 2019, 06:25:23 PM
SERIOUSLY I THINK THE CLOSEST THING TO FREE ENERGY IS A SOLAR PANEL. I JUST GOT A QUOTE FROM ALIBABA  FOR .23 US DOLLAR PER WHAT?? BUT YOU HAVE TO BUY A 40 FEET CONTAINER WORTH..SO PLEASE CUT THE DINASOR SOOOT. JUST DISH OUT THE REAL MACKOY. THIS IS AFTER TWO BLOODY EXPENSIVE 500ML HEINEKEN AT 120 SEYCHELLES RUPEES 4 DEGREES SOUTH OF THE EQUATOR SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INDIAN OCEAN.. YOU CAN ALWATS GET WHAT YOU WANT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PRAY AND GET PISSED.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 16, 2019, 06:36:22 PM
Void:  I have purchased Rick's Don Smith book. It is a very careful analysis complete with circuit diagrams - many of them re-drawn with full explanations. Also in Rick's kit the most important thing is the book that comes with it.  Why should Rick give away for free what he has worked for? Don't you get paid for what you do?   Would you work for free?
That is probably why his students don't attack him and some have come forward with confirmation. 
I have repeatedly said that you get nowhere with winding people up. Does not work.


Some people are like the student who refuses to turn up for classes then blames the teacher when they do not understand things.


Constructive questions are almost always answered. 
Most people would not make comments like they do here - in the real word.
Why does the internet bring out the worst in people?




We should all be polite to each other.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 16, 2019, 06:46:46 PM
In my opinion Rick's two battery & motor setup tutorial video back in 2015 said it all for me!  ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvQOAY0DwgI
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 16, 2019, 06:49:04 PM
SORRY TO SAY I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING ALL THESE WHATEVER SINCE WINDOW 98..AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WINDOW 98 WORK 8 OUT OF 10,,BUUUUT I HAVE NOT YET SEEN ANY THING SHORT OF A MIRACLE AS YET.. BUT I STILL BUY A SCRATCHY IN THE HOPE OF WINNING..WHAT I NEED IS HOPE...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 16, 2019, 06:50:29 PM
Hi a.king. I have not the slightest interest in trying to wind people up.
I stand by every word I wrote in my comment above, as it comes from many
years of experience and observation. :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 17, 2019, 03:45:36 AM
Void, I have exposed many of your false statements, contradictions and assumptions. It is easy to say such things but what constructive things have you done? You make a lot of claims yourself for someone who is Void of a name. You make such statements that mean nothing. You "won't go into" your "background" so why say that? Is that to give the impression that you are important and that we should just believe you? You are just a smooth talker and spew out countless fallacies each post. A real troll if there ever was one. You are the one talking hooey.

Did I ever say that I don't value self-looping? Tell me where? This is just another one of your lies. I have self-looped my systems from 2005. This is good to do and important. But you deliberately ignore absolutely everything I say. Everything is twisted because you just pervert everything.

Again, self-sustaining is one thing, but by insisting upon that you try and prevent people from experiencing an easier thing as a starting point. The first thing to do is experience free energy or OU. That can be in all the different forms of energy. Anything more than unity is OU or above unity. All of you who ignore that are now involved in an intentional conspiracy to divert people from experiencing free energy. You want them to feel that unless they can loop it around then they don't have anything at all. So you are saying you have to have 200%, and that anything less is useless. Why would an output that is 1.5 times that of normal not be amazing and free energy or OU? This is self-evident. You just ignore that and spew your repeated lies over and over hoping that you can continue to detract people from the truth.

I won't go into my background, but let's just say I can usually very quickly see when someone has little to no real understanding of electronics, and when they are talking a lot of hooey. Such people will typically go on the defensive immediately and start insulting and attacking when anyone starts asking them legitimate questions or points out apparent or obvious flaws in their statements and assumptions and behaviour. As a case in point, Rick has made it clear that even though it is has been clearly explained here, that he still doesn't understand the critical importance and value of trying to self-loop a circuit setup to see if it can be made to self-sustain. He has mixed this simple and straight-forward and very valuable testing method all up into supposedly being some way of creating or achieving OU or something completely bizarre like that.  :o 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 17, 2019, 11:18:09 AM
Why would an output that is 1.5 times that of normal not be amazing and free energy or OU? This is self-evident. You just ignore that and spew your repeated lies over and over hoping that you can continue to detract people from the truth.
So, if I managed to improve the COP of a device by 1.5 times from its 'normal running efficiency, then I would have OU by your reckoning. So, now I understand how you define OU and why you cannot understand why very few of us on this thread understand you. Onwards and upwards Rick.  8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 17, 2019, 02:59:13 PM
So, if I managed to improve the COP of a device by 1.5 times from its 'normal running efficiency, then I would have OU by your reckoning. So, now I understand how you define OU and why you cannot understand why very few of us on this thread understand you. Onwards and upwards Rick.  8)
Hoppy you want to self loop look at the JB video he shows you how to do that!
your pm is stopping you from getting the latest info!

PS I just know this Newman motor / window motor is going to be a dead duck in the water !  ;D :-X :-[
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 17, 2019, 04:55:02 PM
Hoppy you want to self loop look at the JB video he shows you how to do that!
your pm is stopping you from getting the latest info!

PS I just know this Newman motor / window motor is going to be a dead duck in the water !  ;D :-X :-[
Nah, don't need to cos Rick said so. Got all JB's stuff.  8) ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 17, 2019, 06:35:16 PM
H,
This is not what I am saying. Efficiency of a motor is not the same as unity. You have your circuit loop with the motor in the circle requiring so much energy from the input. It is outputting so much work over time as a result. The work resulting is compared with the input given and that is where you have the understanding of COP. Ratings of some of these motors in sometimes given as 96% around so that really isn't much to worry about. If we had 80% efficient motors then that would be more of an issue in these considerations. But practically speaking, if it takes a certain amount of energy over time to do a certain amount of actual work, then if I have 1.5 times the work done (or specifically 1.5 times the total work done--which would include the losses on the primary side of the system--so heat production as included). 1.5 is just an arbitrary figure to make it more obvious than 1.01 would be.

I have made this very clear for a long time. The problem is that you guys haven't wanted to listen but just keep assuming the worst or whatever you want. A student of mine has followed all of this and made a document of the exchange and that can be seen. Again, the debate specifically was about this very thing. You guys were saying that only a self-running system was OU, which would require actually more than 2 times to accomplish. I said all along, who made up that definition when any output over unity is above or over unity. 1.01 would be as the OUR pdf mentions. Or any beneficial work done over and above what is thought to be possible or expect from a given circuit with it's particular parts. It is really that simple. But you guys have actually caused the confusion by insisting upon arbitrary expectations. While it is fine to want something self-looping, and I'm all for that, been there, done and do that, it is not necessary to experience or prove free energy or OU to do that. It would be OU to do that, but OU is not limited to that. This is simply a basic logical error to say that just because self-running would be OU, that therefore OU is self-looping. There is no OU = self-running as has been continuously argued over and over, with much mocking of me for denying that. If you draw a big circle on a paper and call it OU. Now draw a smaller circle in it and list that as self-running. So now self-running is a small part of the OU circle, but they are not the same circles. Understand now the mistake you guys have been making. Now you get it why I have been pressing this over and over??? Not only is this a completely wrong definition of OU but it is diverting people from appreciating OU experience in a non-looped way as I have argued so much. You have effectively mocked people for claiming OU when they have had less than 2 times over unity. But as I have said, in the real world 1.5 times is huge. So I see this as a very crafty trick to silence all that good experience of many people but insisting upon more than what is necessary.

This was exactly what I experienced about 14 years ago in these exact debates with skeptics that I eventually won on the forums. But when I settled the points with real facts and demonstrations then they changed their expectations from demanding 2 times to 3 times. That was rather humorous. I did give them that as well however. Once that was done there really wasn't very much of a debate anymore about whether OU was possible. Once in a while someone new would come in and have to realize what had already be established. But from that point on it has always been about perfecting different methods for using this technology. I really didn't have the time anymore to do these forums. And this is really the first time in all those years that I have come back to redo what I did then with the previous generation that is not aware of all that.

So, if I managed to improve the COP of a device by 1.5 times from its 'normal running efficiency, then I would have OU by your reckoning. So, now I understand how you define OU and why you cannot understand why very few of us on this thread understand you. Onwards and upwards Rick.  8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 17, 2019, 06:42:34 PM
Here is your window motor in the water:
Remote Control Renaissance Free Energy Watercraft https://youtu.be/Nq362E4j4_A
The system has been demonstrated at many of my meetings. Can be run with a bright light or a second battery that can be rotated as needed with the rotating circuit. So I have done this with watercraft for toys, or 26' cabin cruiser, and also with 2 other boats 11' and 14'. Like I said, either self-running with two battery banks (and now the batteries get better over the years and are not consumed), or as in this demonstration while powering another kind of useful load.

Hoppy you want to self loop look at the JB video he shows you how to do that!
your pm is stopping you from getting the latest info!

PS I just know this Newman motor / window motor is going to be a dead duck in the water !  ;D :-X :-[
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 17, 2019, 07:16:02 PM
Yeah, but was any of it really JB's?  ::)

Nah, don't need to cos Rick said so. Got all JB's stuff.  8) ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 17, 2019, 07:34:39 PM
H,
This is not what I am saying. Efficiency of a motor is not the same as unity. You have your circuit loop with the motor in the circle requiring so much energy from the input. It is outputting so much work over time as a result. The work resulting is compared with the input given and that is where you have the understanding of COP. Ratings of some of these motors in sometimes given as 96% around so that really isn't much to worry about. If we had 80% efficient motors then that would be more of an issue in these considerations. But practically speaking, if it takes a certain amount of energy over time to do a certain amount of actual work, then if I have 1.5 times the work done (or specifically 1.5 times the total work done--which would include the losses on the primary side of the system--so heat production as included). 1.5 is just an arbitrary figure to make it more obvious than 1.01 would be.

How are you measuring work done?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 17, 2019, 08:47:01 PM
Usual ways. But I consider all types of work, not merely electrical. Here is what I just wrote at OUR along those lines however. It is just one paragraph of what I wrote:

"Yes there are different kinds of loads that are more or less appropriate. Any of the bigger LED bulbs have capacitors that can be measured and easily calculated. So once a proper filter like that really smooths out the output to a constant current condition, that is the only place where you can properly measure power. Because power meters will never accurately measure or predict the energy of an impulse because impulse is entirely different than constant current and is nonconservative and results in gains when there is a suitable collector/load. So this is why metering is conditional as to where you place the meter. If your load is directly impulsed then the meter reading will not match the total work that can be done. That is an interesting observation which we have shown countless engineers with their very meters--even when they have the best meters in the world. So scientists would rather measure a constant current loop, and that is what I have been saying. You can monitor the input power, and any and all final loops with loads when they are constant current. But to measure elsewhere in addition will only show that power meter measurements do not reveal actual energy flows and that they can't predict the amount of work that can be done. This is absolutely critical to understand and that is why so many have failed in this research. They just assume that the power measurements are always indicative of output possibilities. But power measurements are only good for a closed loop to indicate how fast you are killing the associated source charge. And yet a power meter can measure some power on a completely open system that does not discharge the source charge, so that is another thing to deal with. The point is that you just need to properly evaluate what actual work is being done in the real world without depending exclusively on power meters. It is just one circular argument because it needs to be proved that such meters are absolutely authoritative in that way. If they are so assumed, as so many do, then naturally this whole forum is a waste of time. So the first principles of free energy research are the associated ideas that distinguish constant current, closed looped, linear and nonlinear resistive processes from impulse or resonance open nonlinear reactive systems. These are fundamentally different even though we do what Kron's lifelong search resulted in, that the two are done together. The environmental inputs are not measurable as they are directly from the aether. As such they will never be acceptable even if you have later outputs after such processes that are measurable gains. I hope you understand this. I have never advocated a no meter testing, but metering has to be more carefully understood in this context. We can always run loads directly and consider the work done. In that case the load itself is a negative resistor where the energy converges into the load. Or we can take that load and loop it with a resistive load in a constant current loop to satisfy the need for metering. Without making that distinction then you fail to understand OU claims and systems. So even if metering shows no or little reading to a negative resistor, it can be helpful to show everyone that it is a limited tool that can only be used under a special case condition (even if that is what people are only used to)."

How are you measuring work done?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: MoFo on July 18, 2019, 01:34:14 AM

Because power meters will never accurately measure or predict the energy of an impulse because impulse is entirely different than constant current and is nonconservative and results in gains when there is a suitable collector/load.


I am convinced  ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 18, 2019, 09:42:56 AM
Rick,
Thanks for your reply but how do you measure work done. For example how did you determine that your big electric boat was running OU and what instrumentation did you use?

What is your opinion on the use of oscilloscopes for measuring pulsed and complex waveforms?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on July 18, 2019, 10:20:27 AM
C'mon this thread is going nowhere.
Here is what you guys should concentrate :1. Can we use resonant circuit like Tesla did to impress as much power on antenna ?2. Can the power radiated from antenna be larger then the input power to the tank circuit ?3. Can the antenna be loaded with resistive load ?4. Can the antenna output be directed to that resistive load and converted to work ?The end is the radio transmitter with the output converted to heat for example !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 18, 2019, 07:28:15 PM
Well I wrote out a response but when I tried to upload a picture it deleted my post. So I'll just say, reread what I wrote already. I use meters like everyone else. On the boat, etc. I'll post boat details on the new website showing that I first did my forklift motor from my Honda EV conversion where I installed it and ran it with the Curtis controller at max 350A @ 132V golf cart batteries to maintain 7MPH, then replaced that with my system, yes another window motor on the water AG. I never ran it more than 24V off the same batteries, and at 50A I was driving it around 5MPH. It was a 10,000 pound 1979 boat. Always had meters on it, and just rotated it around. Didn't do anything special to show everyone that even the basic system was practical. So on efficiency I was doing much better than regular systems. No power consumption I had zero for three years. Also for a few years before that when it was in the rider lawnmower.

I use oscopes for many reasons and measuring complex waveforms results in complex discussions. That's my opinion. I have already answered the limitations of trying to measure non-existent current processes to try and conclude nothing substantial is happening. The scope and probe become their own loop in a circular argument of sorts. However, limited measurements can be made and software can and does predict nonlinear reactive processes. So once you learn that you can create endless free energy systems...

Rick,
Thanks for your reply but how do you measure work done. For example how did you determine that your big electric boat was running OU and what instrumentation did you use?

What is your opinion on the use of oscilloscopes for measuring pulsed and complex waveforms?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 18, 2019, 07:58:09 PM
That's right, but you don't have to do such an involved system to experience OU. You guys just latched on to this and missed the intention of my kit because you were just guessing about it.

So if you are going to do a circuit like Tesla did, then you have to actually read Tesla and do what he did. I don't see that hardly at all. You are going to have to not miss one detail from his lectures and patents. There is little evidence that people are paying attention to his details. Those details are part of the principles of free energy. Tesla said certain things were a must while most people ignore such comments and make something different. For example, do they just have a spark gap without going to the meticulous detail of perfecting it with proper magnetic quenching? Why is that important, isn't just a matter of pulsing? No, Tesla emphatically taught on the importance of a fast rate of change and that the faster the better. This is a principle mostly ignored. While cutting short the arc is more efficient, he is not so concerned with that as much as who the gains are from the fastest rates of change. He gave a lot of detail along those lines and that was fundamental to understanding his one wire system and even the so-called Hairpin circuit.

So you can't even begin to do Tesla without understanding what he was doing and why the details mattered. I'm not directing this at you Forest in saying all this, just speaking in general. We are looking for a very sharp impulse. Secondly, a resonance circuit properly done. Thirdly with proper grounding, and understanding fully what that means. Fourthly, proper L1 L2 relationships. Fifthly quarter wavelengths. Now read the details, sometimes only said once, and you can expect the same results. This will actually show you not to do the power transmission system he patented. It will just take you back to an easier way to experience OU. Follow what he said about one wire systems and the fast rate of impulsing and you will get what you are looking for without needing wireless. This I have long said and demonstrated for years.

As for radio systems you want a loosely coupled L1/L2 where the secondary is independent of the primary. You only want a situation where the primary is not affected by the secondary(s). This is the same as the Don Smith Effect where the primary side of the capacitor is not affected or dampened by the secondary side. So it is unlike a phase lock loop tesla coil that tracks the secondary and adjusts the primary. Or at least any L3 coil from that point on is not hard linked to the L2/L1 system. What you are after is what I mentioned the other day, and it is not what people are looking for. This is why I set up my kit to help people learn this on a very small scale. So when you do this, this results, but when you do that, something different happens. Itsu was starting to see some of that. There is a lot more going on in the near field then people realize. But ultimately you won't be fooling around with satellite coils (well that is not true as the whole world is rapidly moving in that way with rectenna tech taking over soon) but will be doing Tesla L1/L2 coils which will multiply the energy. You just have to learn the difference between the two different types of coupling while never loading down the primary...

C'mon this thread is going nowhere.
Here is what you guys should concentrate :1. Can we use resonant circuit like Tesla did to impress as much power on antenna ?2. Can the power radiated from antenna be larger then the input power to the tank circuit ?3. Can the antenna be loaded with resistive load ?4. Can the antenna output be directed to that resistive load and converted to work ?The end is the radio transmitter with the output converted to heat for example !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 18, 2019, 08:08:38 PM
Well I wrote out a response but when I tried to upload a picture it deleted my post. So I'll just say, reread what I wrote already. I use meters like everyone else. On the boat, etc. I'll post boat details on the new website showing that I first did my forklift motor from my Honda EV conversion where I installed it and ran it with the Curtis controller at max 350A @ 132V golf cart batteries to maintain 7MPH, then replaced that with my system, yes another window motor on the water AG. I never ran it more than 24V off the same batteries, and at 50A I was driving it around 5MPH. It was a 10,000 pound 1979 boat. Always had meters on it, and just rotated it around. Didn't do anything special to show everyone that even the basic system was practical. So on efficiency I was doing much better than regular systems. On power consumption I had zero for three years. Also for a few years before that when it was in the rider lawnmower.

I use oscopes for many reasons and measuring complex waveforms results in complex discussions. That's my opinion. I have already answered the limitations of trying to measure non-existent current processes to try and conclude nothing substantial is happening. The scope and probe become their own loop in a circular argument of sorts. However, limited measurements can be made and software can and does predict nonlinear reactive processes. So once you learn that you can create endless free energy systems...
Thanks Rick. Just two more questions please and I'll leave you in peace:-
Do have a record of the total sailing time over the three years?
Did you ever top up the battery bank(s) and if so, how frequently?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 18, 2019, 08:37:19 PM
No.
"No power consumption I had zero for three years."
[Must be too tired to notice, I had typed "On" instead of "No". Then I had the nerve to quote it as it has said "No".  :o ]

Thanks Rick. Just two more questions please and I'll leave you in peace:-
Do have a record of the total sailing time over the three years?
Did you ever top up the battery bank(s) and if so, how frequently?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 19, 2019, 12:52:11 AM
Rick,

I return to the gain at resonance question. You wrote https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536614/#msg536614 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536614/#msg536614) this:

Quote
"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."

Because you did not consider important details I gave on the real explanation on voltage gain in series LC circuits involved in your setup, I repeat it here.

"In my answer #1130 I gave 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. "

Rick, this is a physical and measurable fact: a much higher coil current is pumped into the series LC circuit at resonance from the gate driver than from the function generator (at the same output voltage levels), this is as simple as that. 
No disruptive discharge happens. Notice that a function generator is able to provide square waves with fast rise and fall times, comparable to that of a gate driver, just study the specs of your FG. The gate driver can of course be faster than the FG because at resonance it pumps current into resistance and not reactance, the latter always slows down switching speed.  For FGs you can find 40-50 ns rise and fall times or lower (depends on the make), for gate drivers this can be 20-30 ns or even less, also depends on the type. 

Regarding your sentence "It (i.e. the coil) is not transmitting a 9V output as it does when out of resonance." 
I agree with this but the question is why that happens?  Well, it is obvious: the coil current dramatically decreases in a series LC circuit when it is out of resonance. In the out of resonance state the AC impedance of a series LC circuit goes up to the several kOhm range and higher, so the driver IC can pump much less current into a high impedance. So it is obvious that there is a radiation difference between the resonant high coil current and the off tuned low coil current cases. 

I agree that power is not = to energy. I did not write or imply that, so why mention it to me?

However, if you write voltage is energy, then it is your unique science I disagree with. 

It is interesting that you have not stated that current is also energy.  For it is the current that creates magnetic field around a coil afterall... but 'conventional' science does not state that current is energy either.

So, the stronger EM field around the coil of a series LC circuit is created by the much higher current at resonance versus the field at off resonance. And the stronger EM field can only contain and represent the equivalent of your 0.75 W or so DC input or whatever other DC input involved. 
The gate driver does a much better impedance mathing needed for efficiently driving the low impedance series LC circuit, the 50 Ohm output of an FG (or any resistance you insert into the series LC circuit) can only ruin the matching.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 19, 2019, 05:17:04 AM
Gyulasun,
I can see you worked hard on this one. Nice job!  8) Almost everything you write here is out of context or just a basic level understanding of how all this work. You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience. You, through Itsu, may have a setup doing one thing, but it isn't what I am doing. You can do all that in college and limit yourself to one set of relationships. Then you can argue in a circle within the circle you have drawn for yourself to only experience. But I have stepped outside of that Lorentz truncated circle and find more to the story. I actually start with the fact that I have measurable 8W with a limited number of coils. I don't need to do any gymnastics to deny that and have 3/4W input. That is was just what happened without any tuning and rushing a video. If it is zero or negative then what? Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results and work your way backwards. Again, you argue merely in a circle to perpetuate an conservative dogma. How do you hope to realize your hope of a circuit producing any gains if you argue thus? This is why I said that was just misleading hype. We all know the mainstream theories here Gyulasun. The point of being here is to expand our minds beyond that when we see contradictory results like these and then consider what is really happening in the tank, and external to it. Consider what Barrett said and proved with real evidence. Consider what he also wrote in 1991 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305636853_Tesla's_nonlinear_oscillator-shuttle-circuit_OSC_theory_compared_with_linear_nonlinear-feedback_and_nonlinear-element_electrical_engineering_circuit_theory
This also shows you the difference in relation to Tesla. What you are fixated on inside your circle is a single body symmetry that has fixed relations and you suppose it can have no extra influence on other bodies. But that just isn't the case in a resonant tank is it? And in my case is it obvious that I can add more and more coils (about 500) without raising the input or lowering the other outputs (if properly positioned). So now I add 45 more big coils and bulbs at 1/2W each (30W total), with 440 small coils and bulbs (26W) and I'm just getting started, because the input has gone down more and I haven't even done the full tuning.

The point is that I can't make your hand move coils around and force you to see what you don't want to see because of your circle reasoning. I have tried to provide a different context for you to explore according to your "surely" expect hope. But that doesn't sound like expectation, but rather, it can't be more than conservative. I gave the historical context which most people are long aware of. This includes the financial motivations of Rockefeller via Morgan to keep this from the public. Followed by Tesla's context along these lines. Now I'll quote Benitez to show another example similar to what we are looking at here:

This invention relates to a new utilisation of the high frequency currents or electrical oscillations, by means of which a constant production of electrical energy can be secured, under unusually simple, economic and practical conditions. ...
Therefore it is only question of reversing the connections of said batteries from time to time and to repeat the same procedure, in order to obtain a continuous production of electrical energy. ...
Obviously, if such electric power instead of being stored by said condenser had been simply rectified, and directly applied to the charge of one of the above mentioned batteries, such power would only produce a very small effect on these accumulators, and the whole discharge of the other battery would never cause the complete charge of the second group. On the contrary, if same said power is stored by said condenser 48, and this condenser is properly connected to an oscillatory circuit in which one of said batteries can be joined, and furthermore if by means of a rectifier the high frequency currents produced in such oscillatory circuit are forced to pass from the positive to the negative pole through said battery of accumulators, it is obvious to state that it is always possible to secure by these means, the number of amperes required by said accumulators in order to get them charged in a given time. That is to say, with a small number of coulombs stored by the condenser 48, it is possible to produce on the oscillatory circuit a great number of amperes, if same said small number of coulombs are forced to pass and repass through said circuit, thousands or millions of times per second, just as was explained with the water analogy." Carlos F. Benitez, 1918 British Patent 121,561 New Process for the Generation of Electrical Energy.

Was Tesla, Benitez, Smith, Rick all lying to everyone about the real amplification of a tank circuit output? You many not realize how to do that, but can you say his testimony is a lie? I have demonstrated several years ago an earlier Benitez system that is easy for everyone to do. It is very similar, and the oscillations can be seen in your oscilloscope, as well as the fact that the batteries can be rotated. Benitez is verified as accurate. It is interesting that the skeptics never go after his patents and almost everyone but Peter and me have ignored him. Now the Resonance kit is a model of this last patent that is quoted above and does the same things. If what you said was true there would be no gain from a nonresonance condition to a resonance. Obviously there is a gain in resonance. Just ask any musician and they will laugh till they roll on the ground if you say no.

Now we do the Benitez system above, to a lesser degree, in chapter 2 with one wire system. But the same thing applies with wireless. And we can do the wireless in addition to this above patent. According to you, the tank would only output to the battery what would be output without the tank, because resonance is not a gain at all. 1,250,000 cycles per second of 1300V is not doing anything more than 12V@60ma would do. Of course resonance is just for tuning into radio stations, and music is flat. But with the wireless we are doing something else still.

If I have any radiation detector I can see what the inductor radiates in and out of resonance. In fact the difference of input is minimal in or out of resonance, but the radiation is phenomenally different. The way you word things contradicts that. You have an art in not finishing the context so that the reader gets the opposite impression. Sure you don't actually say it, but the way you argue implies it (otherwise there is no point in saying any of it). Or maybe this is just all a test to see if anyone is paying attention. The input does not change substantially, or proportionately to the radiation and voltage between in and out of resonance. This is a nonconservative relationship, obviously. Now if I was ringing the bell instead of a forced oscillation then that would be even more obvious. But again, all we have to do is compare the input with the output and see what the difference is: Input is about the same in or out of resonance, yet output massively different. hmmm, about the differences between 9V and 1300V. There's that 144 times the difference, and is what we see in radiation difference. Sounds like confirmation to me. Electrical resonance is just as much of a gain as piano resonance is no matter if you can't tune a string, or measure with a meter, or position with a coil. It is experimentally observable just as with a piano. You agree with the radiation difference, but you deliberately leave out the most obvious detail (which is implied by other things you say elsewhere) that the input does not correspondingly change to be 144 times different.

So all your reasoning is a bunch of hoopla. And it becomes merely a prestige jargon fallacy for those who do not understand these things. It took some time to craft those words. I don't have time to do this with the rest. Everyone can see again that you just have to consider the input and output in and out of resonance without understanding much else. You see that is what I am about. Not talking over people's heads. I show them the real world and use words they can clearly understand. I fill out the context and walk with them till they get it. Maybe irritated by that, but they hug me in the end.  ;D You have just argued in a circle quoting the text book against your hope of more, have been special pleading to pick out whatever Itsu does one time and conclude on that, and have deliberately left out obvious facts that completely change everything. All this with mild prestige jargon so that those that don't understand just get discouraged, those that do don't pay attention to the details and just commit confirmation bias by the crafty missing context left out (the mind automatically concludes in the silence that the input must change). Well done! This is why I say this is mostly psychological.

Again, if you had shared this on electroboom's youtube channel or on a regular electronics forum, I would understand your insistence upon textbook circular quotation. But there has to be more than one person here on this forum that actually believes in OU and is willing to try these things out? Some of you guys claim to have OU, unless that was just a game as well. Does everyone here agree to believe what the textbooks tell you?

I suggest then you move up to Barrett's textbook then. If you are looking for mathematical justification he will open your mind. If you are looking for evidence and application of the same, he is also your man. He points you right back to the beginning, and then also to Tesla.

Rick,

I return to the gain at resonance question. You wrote https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536614/#msg536614 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536614/#msg536614) this:

Because you did not consider important details I gave on the real explanation on voltage gain in series LC circuits involved in your setup, I repeat it here.

"In my answer #1130 I gave 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. "

Rick, this is a physical and measurable fact: a much higher coil current is pumped into the series LC circuit at resonance from the gate driver than from the function generator (at the same output voltage levels), this is as simple as that. 
No disruptive discharge happens. Notice that a function generator is able to provide square waves with fast rise and fall times, comparable to that of a gate driver, just study the specs of your FG. The gate driver can of course be faster than the FG because at resonance it pumps current into resistance and not reactance, the latter always slows down switching speed.  For FGs you can find 40-50 ns rise and fall times or lower (depends on the make), for gate drivers this can be 20-30 ns or even less, also depends on the type. 

Regarding your sentence "It (i.e. the coil) is not transmitting a 9V output as it does when out of resonance." 
I agree with this but the question is why that happens?  Well, it is obvious: the coil current dramatically decreases in a series LC circuit when it is out of resonance. In the out of resonance state the AC impedance of a series LC circuit goes up to the several kOhm range and higher, so the driver IC can pump much less current into a high impedance. So it is obvious that there is a radiation difference between the resonant high coil current and the off tuned low coil current cases.  [Rick adds: what about the full context you purposely leave out so your readers are mislead?]

I agree that power is not = to energy. I did not write or imply that, so why mention it to me?

However, if you write voltage is energy, then it is your unique science I disagree with. 

It is interesting that you have not stated that current is also energy.  For it is the current that creates magnetic field around a coil afterall... but 'conventional' science does not state that current is energy either.

So, the stronger EM field around the coil of a series LC circuit is created by the much higher current at resonance versus the field at off resonance. And the stronger EM field can only contain and represent the equivalent of your 0.75 W or so DC input or whatever other DC input involved. 
The gate driver does a much better impedance mathing needed for efficiently driving the low impedance series LC circuit, the 50 Ohm output of an FG (or any resistance you insert into the series LC circuit) can only ruin the matching.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 19, 2019, 08:29:39 AM
Gyulasun,
I'm still bothered by this post in another point I didn't mention. All this talk about frequency generator is all but an ignoratio elenchi fallacy of missing the point. My post and setup has nothing to do with a frequency generator, so all this comparison with a FG and gate driver was meaningless different subject. I have many FG's and I understand how they work and all the details. It's a bit condescending don't you think, to keep trying to educate me as if you assume I don't know anything. This is rather foolish when you then make such major blunders. So comparing the impedance matching of FG to gate drivers may relate to someone else but not me. I have shown that the fast rate of change results in higher outputs with both my motors and this kit. This is exactly what Tesla said and demonstrated. Obviously you don't believe either of us. Remember, I used the metered power supply to run either of these, and see how using the FG with the same power gives lower results, like producing 250V with 9V input. But when I add the gate driver I get 1300V with the same input approximately. This has a faster rate of change. I only say all this because these are the parts in the kits. I also have other drivers down to 4ns and lower that I don't talk about. But one of my students came to the last meeting with a bag of such parts blown out and a sad puppy dog look as he shared with us how he blew up these expensive parts. But not without first seeing incredible results. Yes, so faster rate of change means more gains. It depends on the parts. His were still higher resistance than mine so there was heat. You have to look at the resistance to speed ratio and decide. The ideal parts are not on the regular supplier websites, like most of the good stuff.

Anyway, you don't acknowledge any gains in impulse and rate of change as determining the amount of gains, as well as oscillating energy as a gain, with higher Q and higher CPS as determining the amount of gains. So I suggest get to the bench and begin testing some time. All this talk about FG has nothing to do with what the benefit of the gate driver really is. You compared the FG with the gate driver when I was comparing running the gate driver when the tank was out of resonance and when it was in resonance. Both were close in input amperage (voltage always the same). 

Like I wrote last, this whole post was half mistaken and the other half out of context. But if someone just breezed through it they may assume that it sounded authoritative. But this shows us more than every that you have no clue about these things, are purposely missing the point, diverting from the point as if you are addressing it, circle reasoning by merely putting your claim in your conclusion, and failing to complete the a point in a context so that it sounds like you were making a point when none was made. I had to read over this many times because I didn't expect that from you. The missing point was that the input was about the same when the tank was in or out of resonance. And that was my point from the very beginning that you wouldn't address. You can't accept that oscillatory energy is a gain as Benitez wrote and made a whole system exactly 100 years ago on. We found out that he also was in France and wrote two of these there as well. Why would he do that if it didn't produce gains? Do you really think he would have made all of those patents in two countries when it didn't work?

One more  point is that I showed in the video that the added grounding changed the output even more. The input did not increase as well.

Rick,

I return to the gain at resonance question. You wrote https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536614/#msg536614 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536614/#msg536614) this:

Because you did not consider important details I gave on the real explanation on voltage gain in series LC circuits involved in your setup, I repeat it here.

"In my answer #1130 I gave 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. "

Rick, this is a physical and measurable fact: a much higher coil current is pumped into the series LC circuit at resonance from the gate driver than from the function generator (at the same output voltage levels), this is as simple as that. 
No disruptive discharge happens. Notice that a function generator is able to provide square waves with fast rise and fall times, comparable to that of a gate driver, just study the specs of your FG. The gate driver can of course be faster than the FG because at resonance it pumps current into resistance and not reactance, the latter always slows down switching speed.  For FGs you can find 40-50 ns rise and fall times or lower (depends on the make), for gate drivers this can be 20-30 ns or even less, also depends on the type. 

Regarding your sentence "It (i.e. the coil) is not transmitting a 9V output as it does when out of resonance." 
I agree with this but the question is why that happens?  Well, it is obvious: the coil current dramatically decreases in a series LC circuit when it is out of resonance. In the out of resonance state the AC impedance of a series LC circuit goes up to the several kOhm range and higher, so the driver IC can pump much less current into a high impedance. So it is obvious that there is a radiation difference between the resonant high coil current and the off tuned low coil current cases. 

I agree that power is not = to energy. I did not write or imply that, so why mention it to me?

However, if you write voltage is energy, then it is your unique science I disagree with. 

It is interesting that you have not stated that current is also energy.  For it is the current that creates magnetic field around a coil afterall... but 'conventional' science does not state that current is energy either.

So, the stronger EM field around the coil of a series LC circuit is created by the much higher current at resonance versus the field at off resonance. And the stronger EM field can only contain and represent the equivalent of your 0.75 W or so DC input or whatever other DC input involved. 
The gate driver does a much better impedance mathing needed for efficiently driving the low impedance series LC circuit, the 50 Ohm output of an FG (or any resistance you insert into the series LC circuit) can only ruin the matching.
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 19, 2019, 10:11:03 AM

If I have any radiation detector I can see what the inductor radiates in and out of resonance. In fact the difference of input is minimal in or out of resonance, but the radiation is phenomenally different. The way you word things contradicts that. You have an art in not finishing the context so that the reader gets the opposite impression. Sure you don't actually say it, but the way you argue implies it (otherwise there is no point in saying any of it). Or maybe this is just all a test to see if anyone is paying attention. The input does not change substantially, or proportionately to the radiation and voltage between in and out of resonance. This is a nonconservative relationship, obviously. Now if I was ringing the bell instead of a forced oscillation then that would be even more obvious. But again, all we have to do is compare the input with the output and see what the difference is: Input is about the same in or out of resonance, yet output massively different. hmmm, about the differences between 9V and 1300V. There's that 144 times the difference, and is what we see in radiation difference. Sounds like confirmation to me. Electrical resonance is just as much of a gain as piano resonance is no matter if you can't tune a string, or measure with a meter, or position with a coil. It is experimentally observable just as with a piano. You agree with the radiation difference, but you deliberately leave out the most obvious detail (which is implied by other things you say elsewhere) that the input does not correspondingly change to be 144 times different.

You appear to ignore the factor of 'time' in your rationalisation of resonance. Yes, of course there is a big difference between 9V and 1300V but most importantly what is the relationship between input to output energy levels. Time is an essential factor in energy calculation! That is why I asked you if you had recorded the full duration of your actual sailing time over the three years you quoted. You answered 'no' to this question, which tells me that you are missing one of the most important bits of data in order to seriously claim that your boat was running efficiently, let alone OU. Its also why I asked you about your view on the use of oscilloscopes as measuring instruments. In electrical terms, work done is inextricably related to time.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: MoFo on July 19, 2019, 11:02:06 AM
You guys are kidding yourselves, resonance is the shuffling of a specific quantity, nothing more.

take 30ml of water, in a closed pipe, arrange on a pendulum, the water moves to one end, the pendulum moves, as does the water, the same 30ml of water returns: Zero Zeta, no resistance.

Time to wake up nubes, I am a Paid Debunker
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on July 19, 2019, 11:04:44 AM
and software can and does predict nonlinear reactive processes. So once you learn that you can create endless free energy systems...

Dear Rick,
First thanks for standing on this thread. So many people are so rude ! What do they expect ? To be saved ? ah ah. But you can see there are the best heights here on people thanking you, as well as 6-feet under posts matching their authors. "Look at the fruits, you will know which tree it is". Said Buddha, Jesus.

I know Don Smith has stated some of this software from the book you have written, but would you agree to help us in mentioning such software names ? Even saves/presets would HELP a LOT.

Regards

ps : still not done with the kit. So much to understand and learn.
ps2 : a.king : still waiting for Rick to push up some Ateliers on the kit... :-* :-* :-*
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 19, 2019, 11:11:19 AM
You guys are kidding yourselves, resonance is the shuffling of a specific quantity, nothing more.

take 30ml of water, in a closed pipe, arrange on a pendulum, the water moves to one end, the pendulum moves, as does the water, the same 30ml of water returns: Zero Zeta, no resistance.

Time to wake up nubes, I am a Paid Debunker
Thanks guru, surprise surprise tell us some thing we don't know
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: MoFo on July 19, 2019, 11:15:53 AM
Thanks guru, surprise surprise tell us some thing we don't know

hey, only plonkers follow such threads, they don't know anything, make them aware this is rubbish would you
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 19, 2019, 11:55:33 AM
Hi Mofo

Could you show us your work with this that hasn't worked, words mean nothing like this otherwise we would believe Tesla was just a mad man anyone can say anything.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: MoFo on July 19, 2019, 11:59:11 AM
Hi Mofo

Could you show us your work with this that hasn't worked, words mean nothing like this otherwise we would believe Tesla was just a mad man anyone can say anything.

for sure, here
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: MoFo on July 19, 2019, 12:03:47 PM
Hi Mofo

Could you show us your work with this that hasn't worked, words mean nothing like this otherwise we would believe Tesla was just a mad man anyone can say anything.

more careful study of Nikola Tesla will be useful to you. He was a great man, and his name and work is used in vain by so many today.

The question begs "what is Energy", Nikola Tesla's greatest discovery defined Energy in a plain and easy to understand context.

you just have to find it =>
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 19, 2019, 12:05:09 PM
That is a nice picture but I asked to see your work in this area that proves we are wasting our time thanks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: MoFo on July 19, 2019, 12:08:57 PM
That is a nice picture but I asked to see your work in this area that proves we are wasting our time thanks.


I think in your own work you will find the answer, if you have not already come to the conclusion, it sounds as if you have, that Energy shuttling is not ever going to result in a gain in energy.

As you ask for proof, I ask you for proof, be a hero, show your amazing LCR Energy Shuttling Generator, please.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 19, 2019, 12:23:00 PM
I am no hero nor do I have proof although I have my doubts, I don't have money to do these replications at this time so I watch and will try to learn from anyone who has been there and done that. I thought from your post that you had done this before and I was wasting my time so I thought you might show your work proving it a waste of my time and possibly change my mind and save me a lot of effort but even if I am wasting my time I will learn some things thanks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: MoFo on July 19, 2019, 12:28:51 PM
I am no hero nor do I have proof although I have my doubts, I don't have money to do these replications at this time so I watch and will try to learn from anyone who has been there and done that. I thought from your post that you had done this before and I was wasting my time so I thought you might show your work proving it a waste of my time and possibly change my mind and save me a lot of effort but even if I am wasting my time I will learn some things thanks.

Well, I must say, a different approach. What is energy, how does Energy get delivered to a LCR or Tank Circuit? How could it be possible to increase the Energy? R would have to become negative wouldn't it?

How could R become negative? Why is this necessary?

In Rick's circuits, R can never become negative, why do I say this?

don't get sucked into scams, the absolute basic rules apply to these circuits and a generational moment never occurs.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 19, 2019, 12:39:27 PM
That will have to be my home work I have to go to work now so thanks and have a good day.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: MoFo on July 19, 2019, 12:51:24 PM
That will have to be my home work I have to go to work now so thanks and have a good day.



have a good day  ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 19, 2019, 01:21:24 PM
Well, I must say, a different approach. What is energy, how does Energy get delivered to a LCR or Tank Circuit? How could it be possible to increase the Energy? R would have to become negative wouldn't it?

How could R become negative? Why is this necessary?

In Rick's circuits, R can never become negative, why do I say this?

don't get sucked into scams, the absolute basic rules apply to these circuits and a generational moment never occurs.
good question on holes
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on July 19, 2019, 05:18:41 PM

I am thinking about if I want to get involved for the next 6 months or not.  I took a two year break and came back rusty but soon got up to speed. I am wondering whether to open up a thread on the Ukrainian Don Smith device or not. So I am thinking about it. ie Kapanadze is a Don Smith copy in my opinion

Hi Mr. a king, it seems to me you are in look of a useful task to produce. I have an idea that I would like myself to realize, but frankly, have no knowledge on where to start.
As I have asked Rick, Why not bring up that Atelier from the RICK on "running a small DC motor" from the resonance multiplied voltage / amperage situation?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on July 19, 2019, 05:26:38 PM
(invalid post)  ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 19, 2019, 06:11:06 PM
Hi Mr. a king, it seems to me you are in look of a useful task to produce. I have an idea that I would like myself to realize, but frankly, have no knowledge on where to start.
As I have asked Rick, Why not bring up that Atelier from the RICK on "running a small DC motor" from the resonance multiplied voltage / amperage situation?



No it's the opposite.


 Anyway some people started a discussion on the device


Re: A-King 21 - build discussion /investigation (https://overunity.com/18282/a-king-21-build-discussion-investigation/msg536918/#msg536918)


You can do tis stuff with the RICK but be careful.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 19, 2019, 06:33:16 PM
Rick,

I quote from your post below:

"You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience."

You know nothing about my background, about my real world experience. 

You also wrote:
"Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results
and work your way backwards."

Are not these 2 sentences in logical fallacy?   8)

But anyway, I actually started from your measured results, you measured nearly 500 Vpp sine wave voltage
with the HV scope probe in your video across the big red TX coil. I do believe it correct even though I saw it in a
video, ok? 

Now if we divide 500V by 12V we get 41.6, let's round this up to 42 for simplicity, this was the loaded Q of your big
red TX coil. 
What is the Q of a coil? You wrote you do not work with definitions but Q is used for expressing the loss factor of coils.
Q is the ratio between all the resistances included in an LC circuit and the inductive reactance, XL.  So Q=XL/R   where
R includes the DC resistance of the coil, the reflected load and loss resistances of coupled coils if there is any coupling
present and includes any generator resistance if the LC circuit is driven from such. 
Now if we express R from the formula, we get R=XL/Q  You mentioned you used about 152 uH coils that included the
big TX coil too. At your 1.153 MHz operating frequency the TX coil would have an inductive reactance of 
XL=2Pi*f*L = 6.28*1.153*152 = 1100.6 Ohm, lets round this to 1100 Ohm, ok? 
So the R resistance comes out as R = 1100 / 42 = 26.2 Ohm. Notice that member Seaad used 30 Ohm resistance in his
LTSpice circuit simulator software with 8 RX coils, a close value to this when he showed the simulation results on this setup.

Now what is important here is that your series LC TX circuit with the receiver coils around it as shown in the video puts
26.2 Ohm onto the output pin of the gate driver IC as the actual resistive load at resonance. This then establishes a peak
current of 12V/26.2=0.458 A in the coil, this is the current which creates the EM field around the TX coil. 

We can also estimate this current like this: the effective value of the nearly 500 Vpp voltage you measured across the TX
coil is 500/2.82 = 177.3 Vrms. We know the TX coil has 1100 Ohm inductive reactance at 1.153 MHz, so the coil current
would be I=177.3/1100 = 0.161 A rms and if we multiply this by 2.82 we get 0.454 App, quite close to the current of 0.458 A
calculated from the 26.2 Ohm load resistance the working TX and RX circuits impose on the gate driver output pin. 

You wrote here https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537003/#msg537003 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537003/#msg537003)  this:

"I have shown that the fast rate of change results in higher outputs with both my motors and this kit. This is exactly
what Tesla said and demonstrated. Obviously you don't believe either of us. Remember, I used the metered power
supply to run either of these, and see how using the FG with the same power gives lower results, like producing 250V
with 9V input. But when I add the gate driver I get 1300V with the same input approximately. This has a faster rate of
change. I only say all this because these are the parts in the kits.

I understand that in a working setup shown in the video, the 1.153 MHz AC output from one of the receiver coils might
be used instead of an FG to drive the input of the gate driver IC so the FG could be dispensed with. 

BUT my explanation refers also to your example you often mention like in the above quote: when you drive the TX circuit from
the FG you get 250 V at resonance across either the L or C and when you drive this same TX circuit from the gate driver
you get 1300 V. The explanation I gave includes impedance matching issue when using the FG's 50 Ohm output resistance
and matching is better with the gate driver IC's 1 Ohm or so output resistance.  And there is much less loss across a 1 Ohm
generator resistance than across a 50 Ohm generator resistance. The missing 50-1=49 Ohm is what enables a
much higher  current in the TX coil versus the current the FG would be able to insure and higher coil current does increase
the EM field, ok?  And Tesla used mainly charged up capacitors as voltage sources that had very small equivalent series 
resistances hence the internal loss was also very small. And his fast mechanical switches (often in combinations) determined the
rate of change he mastered to quasi perfection, they did the disruptive dicharges from the (mainly HV) charged up capacitors.   

So it is not the fast rate of change which caused the high voltage across your L or C but the higher current due to much
better impedance matching between the series LC circuit and the output impedance driving the LC circuit.  And this is valid
whenever the driver IC feeds a load comparable to its low output resistance: internal power loss is much less than that of
a FG with the 50 Ohm output resistance.  That loss not present in the driver IC converts directly to an enhanced output current.
I did mention that I am aware of the switching speed data involved both for an FG and for gate driver ICs (including the very
fast 5 ns or so families you mention).  There is no as much difference in speed between them as to cause the high voltage change. 
Of course, when you pulse a coil and no resonance involved, the fast rate of change does count: the higher the switching
speed the higher the induced peak voltage across the coil at the moment the magnetic field collapses.

You also wrote: "Anyway, you don't acknowledge any gains in impulse and rate of change as determining the amount of
gains, as well as oscillating energy as a gain, with higher Q and higher CPS as determining the amount of gains."

I never wrote any of what you listed. I did write about voltage gain across L or C at resonance, I explained how much the
energy content the created EM field can possess due to the higher current the gate driver IC insures under the better
impedance matched condition.  Understand now? 

You also wrote: "The missing point was that the input was about the same when the tank was in or out of resonance.
And that was my point from the very beginning that you wouldn't address."

Rick, your claimed 8 W output power versus 0.75 W or so input has not been verified by replications yet so until then
how can I comment your point meaningfully? 

You also wrote: "One more  point is that I showed in the video that the added grounding changed the output even more. 
The input did not increase as well." 

I wrote earlier that one cannot estimate power levels by the naked eye, by simply watching the brightness of LED bulbs.
I watched in your video how the brightness increased (or decreased) when you put the ground wire onto the different
RX circuit points. I understand the difficulty of measuring output power of the receiver units and I also explained earlier
to A.king why the ground wire brings in more TX energy from the enviroment. It is the same effect a crystal radio receiver
manifests by giving higher (lauder) audio output when a ground wire is attached. The ground wire opens higher receiving
area / surface for the RX units when ground is connected to the proper circuit point. You say the ground wire brings in
extra electrons, this might fit here too but actually how much power this would add to that of the received by the EM near
field radiation should be estimated by measurements. Naked eye brightness observations are good for fine tuning to
achieve maximum transfer. 

Gyula


Gyulasun,
I can see you worked hard on this one. Nice job!  8) Almost everything you write here is out of context or just a basic level understanding of how all this work. You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience. You, through Itsu, may have a setup doing one thing, but it isn't what I am doing. You can do all that in college and limit yourself to one set of relationships. Then you can argue in a circle within the circle you have drawn for yourself to only experience. But I have stepped outside of that Lorentz truncated circle and find more to the story. I actually start with the fact that I have measurable 8W with a limited number of coils. I don't need to do any gymnastics to deny that and have 3/4W input. That is was just what happened without any tuning and rushing a video. If it is zero or negative then what? Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results and work your way backwards. Again, you argue merely in a circle to perpetuate an conservative dogma. How do you hope to realize your hope of a circuit producing any gains if you argue thus? This is why I said that was just misleading hype. We all know the mainstream theories here Gyulasun. The point of being here is to expand our minds beyond that when we see contradictory results like these and then consider what is really happening in the tank, and external to it. Consider what Barrett said and proved with real evidence. Consider what he also wrote in 1991 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305636853_Tesla's_nonlinear_oscillator-shuttle-circuit_OSC_theory_compared_with_linear_nonlinear-feedback_and_nonlinear-element_electrical_engineering_circuit_theory (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305636853_Tesla's_nonlinear_oscillator-shuttle-circuit_OSC_theory_compared_with_linear_nonlinear-feedback_and_nonlinear-element_electrical_engineering_circuit_theory)
This also shows you the difference in relation to Tesla. What you are fixated on inside your circle is a single body symmetry that has fixed relations and you suppose it can have no extra influence on other bodies. But that just isn't the case in a resonant tank is it? And in my case is it obvious that I can add more and more coils (about 500) without raising the input or lowering the other outputs (if properly positioned). So now I add 45 more big coils and bulbs at 1/2W each (30W total), with 440 small coils and bulbs (26W) and I'm just getting started, because the input has gone down more and I haven't even done the full tuning.

The point is that I can't make your hand move coils around and force you to see what you don't want to see because of your circle reasoning. I have tried to provide a different context for you to explore according to your "surely" expect hope. But that doesn't sound like expectation, but rather, it can't be more than conservative. I gave the historical context which most people are long aware of. This includes the financial motivations of Rockefeller via Morgan to keep this from the public. Followed by Tesla's context along these lines. Now I'll quote Benitez to show another example similar to what we are looking at here:

This invention relates to a new utilisation of the high frequency currents or electrical oscillations, by means of which a constant production of electrical energy can be secured, under unusually simple, economic and practical conditions. ...
Therefore it is only question of reversing the connections of said batteries from time to time and to repeat the same procedure, in order to obtain a continuous production of electrical energy. ...
Obviously, if such electric power instead of being stored by said condenser had been simply rectified, and directly applied to the charge of one of the above mentioned batteries, such power would only produce a very small effect on these accumulators, and the whole discharge of the other battery would never cause the complete charge of the second group. On the contrary, if same said power is stored by said condenser 48, and this condenser is properly connected to an oscillatory circuit in which one of said batteries can be joined, and furthermore if by means of a rectifier the high frequency currents produced in such oscillatory circuit are forced to pass from the positive to the negative pole through said battery of accumulators, it is obvious to state that it is always possible to secure by these means, the number of amperes required by said accumulators in order to get them charged in a given time. That is to say, with a small number of coulombs stored by the condenser 48, it is possible to produce on the oscillatory circuit a great number of amperes, if same said small number of coulombs are forced to pass and repass through said circuit, thousands or millions of times per second, just as was explained with the water analogy." Carlos F. Benitez, 1918 British Patent 121,561 New Process for the Generation of Electrical Energy.

Was Tesla, Benitez, Smith, Rick all lying to everyone about the real amplification of a tank circuit output? You many not realize how to do that, but can you say his testimony is a lie? I have demonstrated several years ago an earlier Benitez system that is easy for everyone to do. It is very similar, and the oscillations can be seen in your oscilloscope, as well as the fact that the batteries can be rotated. Benitez is verified as accurate. It is interesting that the skeptics never go after his patents and almost everyone but Peter and me have ignored him. Now the Resonance kit is a model of this last patent that is quoted above and does the same things. If what you said was true there would be no gain from a nonresonance condition to a resonance. Obviously there is a gain in resonance. Just ask any musician and they will laugh till they roll on the ground if you say no.

Now we do the Benitez system above, to a lesser degree, in chapter 2 with one wire system. But the same thing applies with wireless. And we can do the wireless in addition to this above patent. According to you, the tank would only output to the battery what would be output without the tank, because resonance is not a gain at all. 1,250,000 cycles per second of 1300V is not doing anything more than 12V@60ma would do. Of course resonance is just for tuning into radio stations, and music is flat. But with the wireless we are doing something else still.

If I have any radiation detector I can see what the inductor radiates in and out of resonance. In fact the difference of input is minimal in or out of resonance, but the radiation is phenomenally different. The way you word things contradicts that. You have an art in not finishing the context so that the reader gets the opposite impression. Sure you don't actually say it, but the way you argue implies it (otherwise there is no point in saying any of it). Or maybe this is just all a test to see if anyone is paying attention. The input does not change substantially, or proportionately to the radiation and voltage between in and out of resonance. This is a nonconservative relationship, obviously. Now if I was ringing the bell instead of a forced oscillation then that would be even more obvious. But again, all we have to do is compare the input with the output and see what the difference is: Input is about the same in or out of resonance, yet output massively different. hmmm, about the differences between 9V and 1300V. There's that 144 times the difference, and is what we see in radiation difference. Sounds like confirmation to me. Electrical resonance is just as much of a gain as piano resonance is no matter if you can't tune a string, or measure with a meter, or position with a coil. It is experimentally observable just as with a piano. You agree with the radiation difference, but you deliberately leave out the most obvious detail (which is implied by other things you say elsewhere) that the input does not correspondingly change to be 144 times different.

So all your reasoning is a bunch of hoopla. And it becomes merely a prestige jargon fallacy for those who do not understand these things. It took some time to craft those words. I don't have time to do this with the rest. Everyone can see again that you just have to consider the input and output in and out of resonance without understanding much else. You see that is what I am about. Not talking over people's heads. I show them the real world and use words they can clearly understand. I fill out the context and walk with them till they get it. Maybe irritated by that, but they hug me in the end.  ;D You have just argued in a circle quoting the text book against your hope of more, have been special pleading to pick out whatever Itsu does one time and conclude on that, and have deliberately left out obvious facts that completely change everything. All this with mild prestige jargon so that those that don't understand just get discouraged, those that do don't pay attention to the details and just commit confirmation bias by the crafty missing context left out (the mind automatically concludes in the silence that the input must change). Well done! This is why I say this is mostly psychological.

Again, if you had shared this on electroboom's youtube channel or on a regular electronics forum, I would understand your insistence upon textbook circular quotation. But there has to be more than one person here on this forum that actually believes in OU and is willing to try these things out? Some of you guys claim to have OU, unless that was just a game as well. Does everyone here agree to believe what the textbooks tell you?

I suggest then you move up to Barrett's textbook then. If you are looking for mathematical justification he will open your mind. If you are looking for evidence and application of the same, he is also your man. He points you right back to the beginning, and then also to Tesla.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 19, 2019, 07:00:04 PM
No Hoppy,
You just don't bother to read what I wrote and then pile more fallacies up.
Time is not a factor here because I did point out that G deliberately did not mention the fact that the input and output are not proportional. Bottom line is that out of resonance you have relatively the same input as in resonance, but out of resonance you have a tiny bit of radiation as indicated/according to the input level. And In resonance you have a lot of radiation. The time point doesn't apply here.

Secondly, you are actually being deceitful here in asking me for an exact logging of my time and then making such conclusions. You are either really ignorant are a real troublemaker. If I have hundreds or more hours of time on my boat over three years without every having to charge up my batteries, then your point means nothing. We are not talking about going out for 5 minutes and then again at the end of 3 years. All it takes is a few cycles of the batteries. Remember, I was always having amperage and voltage measurements on the input. So if I have fully discharged a 24V bank with the amount of time and amperage we would expect, and then rotate it around even several times, then I have OU. Next you will say 3 years of doing that isn't enough. Oscilloscope has nothing to do with any of this. But obviously I use it, and used them then.

This post of yours is really desperate because I have now made everything really clear. It is fascinating to watch these foolish remarks.

You appear to ignore the factor of 'time' in your rationalisation of resonance. Yes, of course there is a big difference between 9V and 1300V but most importantly what is the relationship between input to output energy levels. Time is an essential factor in energy calculation! That is why I asked you if you had recorded the full duration of your actual sailing time over the three years you quoted. You answered 'no' to this question, which tells me that you are missing one of the most important bits of data in order to seriously claim that your boat was running efficiently, let alone OU. Its also why I asked you about your view on the use of oscilloscopes as measuring instruments. In electrical terms, work done is inextricably related to time.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 19, 2019, 07:03:52 PM
Yeah, tell that to a pianist.

You guys are kidding yourselves, resonance is the shuffling of a specific quantity, nothing more.

take 30ml of water, in a closed pipe, arrange on a pendulum, the water moves to one end, the pendulum moves, as does the water, the same 30ml of water returns: Zero Zeta, no resistance.

Time to wake up nubes, I am a Paid Debunker
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 19, 2019, 07:41:58 PM
G,
You are not showing us anything here, so until you do I will just go by your words. Your words show that you have not experienced this yet. And your response shows calculated misleading.
This is not a logical fallacy at all. Nice try. The results are not the conclusion and an attempt to find justification. The results are the premise. So is looking back at the rest. The conclusion we are looking for is not the mere results. It is in trying to conclude on what is happening. You have made a claim as to exactly what is happening. That is your conclusion. I have said that your claim is factually false. The results are not the output but the input and the output and considering the differences between in and out of resonance. The results of what is happening from beginning to end.
On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different. And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?

Rick,
I quote from your post below:

"You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience."

You know nothing about my background, about my real world experience. 

You also wrote:
"Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results
and work your way backwards."

Are not these 2 sentences in logical fallacy?   8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: steeltpu on July 19, 2019, 07:45:25 PM
it seems obvious rick you can't show any real proof of overunity because if you had any you would sell lots of your kits.  however you seem unwilling to do yourself the favor that would sell a lot of your kits by showing proof.   i'm sure a lot of people would jump on buying your merchandise if they had proof of ou however since your kits aren't cheap people hesitate to buy them.   so either do yourself a big favor by giving all the details needed that can be replicated in a way that shows proof of ou or give it up and admit you have none.  you ramble on endlessly hoping people will just eventually give in to your circular nonsense and buy a kit from you.   don't buy the bs people.   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 19, 2019, 08:16:20 PM
So if I have fully discharged a 24V bank with the amount of time and amperage we would expect, and then rotate it around even several times, then I have OU. Next you will say 3 years of doing that isn't enough. 
??? So, how did you determine the amount of time you would expect, if you took no record of sailing time or calculated energy used in comparison with energy available from your battery bank(s), using properly measured power consumption measurements over time for each sailing. Note that this is a rhetorical question, so you don't need to answer this, simply because you cannot provide an answer that can convince me that you have taken any real care in collecting meaningful data to support such a bold claim  The problem Rick, is that there appears to be no real scientific method being applied by you. I'm not outright rejecting your OU claim but your account is just not adding up with me.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 19, 2019, 08:59:16 PM
Rick,

OK, you have my curiosity up regarding this boat that you ran over a three year period with the batteries remaining charged over this period.  Obviously you swapped batteries from what you previously mentioned and used the electric drive motor(s) as part of the charging scheme, correct?  So, my question is, what basic circuit configuration did you use?  I'm not asking for you to divulge any secrets but rather just general info like was it Benitez based, DS based, JB based or other?  Was any form of spark gap used?

Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 19, 2019, 10:37:05 PM
Ah Mr. Aggressive (as you urge people to be on OUR),
You can see it in the picture partly, and more in the videos. I'll show all this and more pictures on the new website shortly. It is just the SSG circuit opto sensor triggered, with some additional transistors to drive all the gates. Real simple. No spark gap. Technically is not Bedini as I'm not sure he invented anything. It is more a newman motor with what has been called BEMF charging that predates Bedini if you even look at the prior art in his patent. But I mistakenly popularized this as Bedini.

Rick,

OK, you have my curiosity up regarding this boat that you ran over a three year period with the batteries remaining charged over this period.  Obviously you swapped batteries from what you previously mentioned and used the electric drive motor(s) as part of the charging scheme, correct?  So, my question is, what basic circuit configuration did you use?  I'm not asking for you to divulge any secrets but rather just general info like was it Benitez based, DS based, JB based or other?  Was any form of spark gap used?

Regards,
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 19, 2019, 11:41:53 PM
On the contrary, I have to turn down orders right now. You don't understand, I am not trying to get anyone to buy anything. I offer what people have asked for.
Also, I show real proof to real people in the real world. You are just a no-name bot offering no service to anyone and no useful information. Just another troll attacking me. If you are foolish enough to believe you can prove anything over the internet then what can I say to that? I have offered as much as can be done over the internet. And now I am launching a big website in addition to that.
In the end, you have just rambled in this post and prove to everyone who you are. Just a troll trying to data mine people and then attack them once they give you what you are after. It doesn't even appear that you have read anything that has been said here.

it seems obvious rick you can't show any real proof of overunity because if you had any you would sell lots of your kits.  however you seem unwilling to do yourself the favor that would sell a lot of your kits by showing proof.   i'm sure a lot of people would jump on buying your merchandise if they had proof of ou however since your kits aren't cheap people hesitate to buy them.   so either do yourself a big favor by giving all the details needed that can be replicated in a way that shows proof of ou or give it up and admit you have none.  you ramble on endlessly hoping people will just eventually give in to your circular nonsense and buy a kit from you. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 19, 2019, 11:46:12 PM
Rick,

I am not your mindreader nor are the members here.  And now you deny the logical fallacy you did write, you deny your own written words everybody can see that. Not nice behaviour at all.  But this is a secondary point for me, I am 99% technical and only 1% psyhological... And I do not care if you make 100% psywar here. 

I am not surprised that you back out from the very basic calculation results I gave you from your own measured data. So far you have done like that here whenever I or others pointed out correct technical data, conclusions in connection with your setup(s) in question. 

I have not made any free energy or ou claim like you, I do not need to show you anything. And nor you nor any replicator have proved your results yet that justify your claim of 8W out vs less than 1W input. 

You wrote: "On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different."

No.  I have not been presented with correct data from which I could estimate and compare the in and the out. You return again to the increased radiation at resonance and of course you ignore why it happens.  It happens because the gate driver can pump higher current under a better impedance match condition (output pin of the driver IC you use has around 1 Ohm typical internal resistance, so it can switch the DC supply input voltage onto the TX circuit with small loss).

You also wrote: "And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?"

I do not know what are you talking about here?  Lots of conjectures appear in your posts, not only towards me but towards everyone who asks the correct questions, this is one of your main forum tactics.

And by the way, it was you who wanted to introduce rules on this forum? I quote "The first rule of forums is to be polite."  this is what you wrote here: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536716/#msg536716 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536716/#msg536716)

To be polite? You would need to look into a mirror first, for you called me a foolish person and also a troll and you called other members here as liars, trolls.  Now you attempt to compare me to mofo mocking everyone, this is hilarious, LOL

Gyula


Quote

(gyulasun wrote)
I quote from your post below:
"You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience."
You know nothing about my background, about my real world experience. 
You also wrote:
"Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results
and work your way backwards."
Are not these 2 sentences in logical fallacy?   8)
G,You are not showing us anything here, so until you do I will just go by your words. Your words show that you have not experienced this yet. And your response shows calculated misleading.
This is not a logical fallacy at all. Nice try. The results are not the conclusion and an attempt to find justification. The results are the premise. So is looking back at the rest. The conclusion we are looking for is not the mere results. It is in trying to conclude on what is happening. You have made a claim as to exactly what is happening. That is your conclusion. I have said that your claim is factually false. The results are not the output but the input and the output and considering the differences between in and out of resonance. The results of what is happening from beginning to end.
On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different. And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 12:05:33 AM
Tell me something people. Why is it that I answer all the questions but you guys never do when I ask? Only a few people like G have taken the time to respond, even when he didn't want to reveal that his hope was based on nothing. All these demands but no accountability for your false assumptions and tricks and even lies. Hoppy here makes a sweeping claim that after 3 years of rotating batteries that would be enough for OU claim. And now look:

You again assume and assume and assume, but always the worst possible assumption. I responded to your question about if I tracked every moment, not that I didn't track any of it. I have video of many things that I don't show online. It is date stamped.
Now I have worked with golf cart batteries and no a great deal about loading them down. I told you that I even took the forklift motor out of my Honda conversion and first installed in the boat to actually do a proper comparison. I drove that car for a few years and then the Porsche for three years with such batteries. Also many other things with the same kinds of batteries. I am daily on the phone with technicians about loading such batteries. I know what they can put out. It isn't really that hard. So now, if you care to listen, if I am running any load at a certain amperage over a certain time I can see a battery discharge and then need to be charged. I can compare that with all the thousands of identical batteries that I have worked with in the same way. The battery is discharged. Now I rotate that bank with an identical one, but just rotating the two Anderson connectors as you will see in another picture I'll post on the website or in the videos. So then I do the same thing after some hours on the water cruising CDA lake. Go to Trojan batteries and look up their speck sheet. Tell me what you can expect out of their T-105 batteries. We see gains over these original specs very often over the years. But that is another benefit of this technology which is free energy in a way (when you don't have to buy new batteries again).
Now I also have data logging software and equipment to monitor batteries. We have used these for many years now. My industrial chargers even do that. I didn't say that I didn't log anything, or didn't meter anything, as I always had meters on my batteries.
So you are a fool to say such things and entirely reject what I said based upon your meaningless question. Yes it was meaningless because you just took license to assume whatever you wanted. You are a Troll if there ever was one.  The stupid thing about all this you are just trying to play mindgames with people here in this. I mean really, only real people in the real world can verify anything, and here you are trying to try and disprove something with mere words, that are but lies and sophistry!
On the contrary, it is your twisted account that is not lining up with reality. What do you even know about science?

??? So, how did you determine the amount of time you would expect, if you took no record of sailing time or calculated energy used in comparison with energy available from your battery bank(s), using properly measured power consumption measurements over time for each sailing. Note that this is a rhetorical question, so you don't need to answer this, simply because you cannot provide an answer that can convince me that you have taken any real care in collecting meaningful data to support such a bold claim  The problem Rick, is that there appears to be no real scientific method being applied by you. I'm not outright rejecting your OU claim but your account is just not adding up with me.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 20, 2019, 12:06:58 AM
Ah Mr. Aggressive (as you urge people to be on OUR),
You can see it in the picture partly, and more in the videos. I'll show all this and more pictures on the new website shortly. It is just the SSG circuit opto sensor triggered, with some additional transistors to drive all the gates. Real simple. No spark gap. Technically is not Bedini as I'm not sure he invented anything. It is more a newman motor with what has been called BEMF charging that predates Bedini if you even look at the prior art in his patent. But I mistakenly popularized this as Bedini.

Yup, that's me!

OK, thanks for the reply and I'll  tell you why I asked.  If you place enough info on your new website, I will attempt to simulate the circuit.  Oh, oh, I see it will be a rotary generator design.  Oh well, that makes it a bit more difficult to analyze but doable.  I'm sure you are aware but perhaps not that simulators are designed around classical theory.  So, as many people have stated thru the years, "OU can never be shown with a simulator".  Wrong!!! It can and I have two examples of technologies at present not counting a sim I made of Tesla's ozone patent.

I will patiently wait.

Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 12:28:51 AM
Like I just wrote, you don't know what you are talking about.

Yup, that's me!

OK, thanks for the reply and I'll  tell you why I asked.  If you place enough info on your new website, I will attempt to simulate the circuit.  Oh, oh, I see it will be a rotary generator design.  Oh well, that makes it a bit more difficult to analyze but doable.  I'm sure you are aware but perhaps not that simulators are designed around classical theory.  So, as many people have stated thru the years, "OU can never be shown with a simulator".  Wrong!!! It can and I have two examples of technologies at present not counting a sim I made of Tesla's ozone patent.

I will patiently wait.

Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 01:21:43 AM
Gyulasun,
You revealed your psywar when you deceived everyone with your "surely" line. We all can see this now. That was why you took so long to respond to that. It was an easy thing to respond to if it was an honest statement. It completely invalidated you to answer one way or the other. If you actually gave grounds for saying "surely" then I would have built upon that and lead you to the green pastures you "surely" expect to be there. But no, that would compromise your mission here. The mission to enforce absolute conformity to mainstream theory. You are the gatekeeper here, and I ruined that mission now. But if you revealed that there was in fact not scientific or probable basis for this misleading "surely" hype, which is what you ended up doing, then it would show everyone that the statement was misleading them, and also that you inconsistently overbelieve things. I guess you opted not to give any grounds for OU and instead made yourself not credible. Again, that is all in the context of your constant insistence upon your claims that are completely inconsistent with OU possibilities. For someone who is "surely" expecting OU you actually "surely" assume in everything that it can't be there. This is your constant circle. This is now the context of everything you say to anyone here. It is assumed in your circle reasoning with me below.

I didn't back out of anything. I responded to the first part only because that is separate. I responded to others because they were short. Nice try. You took weeks to respond to things, and now you play this game and tell people I am backing out. You are not being technical at all, it is called sophistry, and that is using technical jargon deceitfully. You are perfectly aware of what you are doing.

You have made many claims. Maybe you don't realize it. Everything that is a truth of demonstration needs to be demonstrated. You have demonstrated nothing here but what I have exposed. I notice how quick you fired back after I did that. Must not let people see that. Must quickly rush out many more words to deflect the damage done. Well this only looks worse Gyulasun. Covering up dishonesty just keeps making it worse. You did yourself better by backing out earlier.

Notice how you again avoid the point. You just assumed that the input would have to correspond to the output voltage and radiation. But it actually doesn't. There is substantially no input difference between running the tank with 9V out of resonance and with running in resonance. That has been my point all along. It's kind of basics man. So you gave all this hoopla for nothing when this is the case. So all the focus on coils and whathaveyou boils down to the fact that there is significant radiation difference in and out of resonance without a corresponding difference input.

Again, the point I was making was the way your presented this in a crafty way as to mislead the readers to assume that the input would be substantially different. I mean, if we are talking about 144 times the difference, or even if it was 50 times, we would then have to see that reflected in the input dropping that much. So if we are talking about 0.72W input in resonance, it would have to go down to 0.005W input for the non-resonance @ 144 times the radiation and voltage. Or at least 0.014W if it was 50 times. But this is not the case. And no matter how many deflections about what you think is happening in the devices, we are always talking about output and input comparisons. It is typical for such people to get hung up in the inbetween and ignore the beginning and end conclusions. This is ignoration elenchi Gyulasun, deflecting the whole point. You just can't admit that resonance is a gain even when you see more radiation. You have to assume that the input/output would be proportional either way. (Now I'll save a point here for a new post.) But the numbers on not linear no matter how much you want them to be.

So much for your "surely" expectation hope. You assume there is no hope for OU in a circuit. Yes you said I a circuit. It wasn't hope in some atomic OU solution, but in these very things. I show you such a way and you just insist upon a limited theory that claims that hope is folly. There is no coming back from this Gyulasun. You can repeat the diversions all you want. Your fallacy is pinpointed. It was a diversion from the point at hand. And while this is being revealed you should "surely" be excited about the implications here. Your hope is being realized. But maybe that is not your hope after all. Maybe it was just hype so that people who actually believe in OU would feel comfortable with all your expert surmising's.

But I am not so convinced that you disbelieve in OU. You never can tell what people really believe, as we can see in your case. And this is why all these forums are running in a useless way because you cannot prove anything through the forum. All this is doing is showing just how much people want to suppress this technology. That is the only reason I have prolonged this as I have. This is very important for everyone to see the desperation to control these forums and keep people paying for their energy. Keep up the good work Gyulasun.

As for polite, I am speaking with jest here. But I am calling out deceptions as they are.

Rick,
I am not your mindreader nor are the members here.  And now you deny the logical fallacy you did write, you deny your own written words everybody can see that. Not nice behaviour at all.  But this is a secondary point for me, I am 99% technical and only 1% psyhological... And I do not care if you make 100% psywar here. 
I am not surprised that you back out from the very basic calculation results I gave you from your own measured data. So far you have done like that here whenever I or others pointed out correct technical data, conclusions in connection with your setup(s) in question. 

I have not made any free energy or ou claim like you, I do not need to show you anything. And nor you nor any replicator have proved your results yet that justify your claim of 8W out vs less than 1W input. 

You wrote: "On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different."

No.  I have not been presented with correct data from which I could estimate and compare the in and the out. You return again to the increased radiation at resonance and of course you ignore why it happens.  It happens because the gate driver can pump higher current under a better impedance match condition (output pin of the driver IC you use has around 1 Ohm typical internal resistance, so it can switch the DC supply input voltage onto the TX circuit with small loss).

You also wrote: "And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?"

I do not know what are you talking about here?  Lots of conjectures appear in your posts, not only towards me but towards everyone who asks the correct questions, this is one of your main forum tactics.

And by the way, it was you who wanted to introduce rules on this forum? I quote "The first rule of forums is to be polite."  this is what you wrote here: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536716/#msg536716 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536716/#msg536716)

To be polite? You would need to look into a mirror first, for you called me a foolish person and also a troll and you called other members here as liars, trolls.  Now you attempt to compare me to mofo mocking everyone, this is hilarious, LOL

Gyula

G,You are not showing us anything here, so until you do I will just go by your words. Your words show that you have not experienced this yet. And your response shows calculated misleading.
This is not a logical fallacy at all. Nice try. The results are not the conclusion and an attempt to find justification. The results are the premise. So is looking back at the rest. The conclusion we are looking for is not the mere results. It is in trying to conclude on what is happening. You have made a claim as to exactly what is happening. That is your conclusion. I have said that your claim is factually false. The results are not the output but the input and the output and considering the differences between in and out of resonance. The results of what is happening from beginning to end.
On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different. And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?

(gyulasun wrote)
I quote from your post below:
"You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience."
You know nothing about my background, about my real world experience. 
You also wrote:
"Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results
and work your way backwards."
Are not these 2 sentences in logical fallacy?   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 02:21:47 AM
Gyulasun,
The first part I already answered and you deflected so I answered again.
The next part of your long reply actually is not even part of the point of discussion. It is just a show of numbers. I run the same sort of numbers when I am doing different things. You are trying too hard to impress people with numbers. I am trying to show people the issue at hand in an non-convoluted way. Notice your deflecting the point again. You claim that you are referring to my comparison of the frequency generator with the gate driver. But your explination does not actually address the issue as I have repeatedly pointed out. It is an ignoration elenchi that misses the point of what I am saying. So this is a deliberate attempt to divert the point with a bunch of words to make it look like you are responding to the point. The point is that if the frequency generator powered by the metered power supply draws substantially the same power as the gate driver, then we have a gain demonstrated because of the fact of the rate of change and not because of all your gymnastics.

What you do at the end is then argue from ignorance. You say in the end that you just haven't been proven a point. Well none of this can be proven at all. You are fine with all the information from Itsu or me up to a point you do not want to believe. Again, I am not expecting you to believe any of this. But I am showing how you are playing deflecting games. We all heard your understanding of impedances but the whole point of all of this was that I made the point that the rate of change makes a difference in the output when substantially the same input. This was seen in my motors over the years when I added the gate driver the motor efficiency went up but the output much more. This is one key principle of gain, just as oscillatory energy, with Tesla.

You could have saved everyone the words and just said, well Rick, the input must equal the output no matter what you say or show over the internet. And the input will go substantially down out of resonance, while the input will go substantially up in resonance to comply with conservation. But the problem Gyulasun, is that the amount of radiation produced between these two does not correspond to the input. And everyone knows this, even you. Nice try!

And I already addressed the bulbs. I made them just so bright as to make it obvious as well. This is just arguing like the other guy about me running my boat for three years rotating the batteries is not any indication at all of OU because I didn't log EVERY trip. All you guys do is seek to disprove things you disagree with while you believe equally shown things you agree with. This is why I showed all this as I did. To bring out this double standard.

I understand that in a working setup shown in the video, the 1.153 MHz AC output from one of the receiver coils might be used instead of an FG to drive the input of the gate driver IC so the FG could be dispensed with. 

BUT my explanation refers also to your example you often mention like in the above quote: [BLA BLA BLA deflection follows] when you drive the TX circuit from the FG you get 250 V at resonance across either the L or C and when you drive this same TX circuit from the gate driver you get 1300 V. The explanation I gave includes impedance matching issue when using the FG's 50 Ohm output resistance and matching is better with the gate driver IC's 1 Ohm or so output resistance.  And there is much less loss across a 1 Ohm generator resistance than across a 50 Ohm generator resistance. The missing 50-1=49 Ohm is what enables a much higher  current in the TX coil versus the current the FG would be able to insure and higher coil current does increase the EM field, ok?  And Tesla used mainly charged up capacitors as voltage sources that had very small equivalent series  resistances hence the internal loss was also very small. And his fast mechanical switches (often in combinations) determined the rate of change he mastered to quasi perfection, they did the disruptive dicharges from the (mainly HV) charged up capacitors.   

So it is not the fast rate of change which caused the high voltage across your L or C but the higher current due to much better impedance matching between the series LC circuit and the output impedance driving the LC circuit.  And this is valid whenever the driver IC feeds a load comparable to its low output resistance: internal power loss is much less than that of
a FG with the 50 Ohm output resistance.  That loss not present in the driver IC converts directly to an enhanced output current. I did mention that I am aware of the switching speed data involved both for an FG and for gate driver ICs (including the very fast 5 ns or so families you mention).  There is no as much difference in speed between them as to cause the high voltage change. 
Of course, when you pulse a coil and no resonance involved, the fast rate of change does count: the higher the switching speed the higher the induced peak voltage across the coil at the moment the magnetic field collapses.

You also wrote: "Anyway, you don't acknowledge any gains in impulse and rate of change as determining the amount of gains, as well as oscillating energy as a gain, with higher Q and higher CPS as determining the amount of gains."

I never wrote any of what you listed. I did write about voltage gain across L or C at resonance, I explained how much the energy content the created EM field can possess due to the higher current the gate driver IC insures under the better impedance matched condition.  Understand now? 

You also wrote: "The missing point was that the input was about the same when the tank was in or out of resonance.
And that was my point from the very beginning that you wouldn't address."

Rick, your claimed 8 W output power versus 0.75 W or so input has not been verified by replications yet so until then how can I comment your point meaningfully? 

You also wrote: "One more  point is that I showed in the video that the added grounding changed the output even more. 
The input did not increase as well." 

I wrote earlier that one cannot estimate power levels by the naked eye, by simply watching the brightness of LED bulbs.
I watched in your video how the brightness increased (or decreased) when you put the ground wire onto the different
RX circuit points. I understand the difficulty of measuring output power of the receiver units and I also explained earlier
to A.king why the ground wire brings in more TX energy from the enviroment. It is the same effect a crystal radio receiver
manifests by giving higher (lauder) audio output when a ground wire is attached. The ground wire opens higher receiving
area / surface for the RX units when ground is connected to the proper circuit point. You say the ground wire brings in
extra electrons, this might fit here too but actually how much power this would add to that of the received by the EM near
field radiation should be estimated by measurements. Naked eye brightness observations are good for fine tuning to
achieve maximum transfer. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 20, 2019, 04:18:42 AM
Like I just wrote, you don't know what you are talking about.

Rick,

You know, I searched thru the posts here trying to find where you said the above but I could find nothing.  Then I thought "wait a minute"' and sure enough, you had posted that on OUR.  That is really poor forum etiquette sir and not very commendable!

Plus, do you realize that you and those in control of this forum may be bordering on libel with your statement above? 

As I stated on OUR, you are not worth wasting anymore time on.

Carry on-
Pm

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 06:47:29 AM
 ::)

Rick,

You know, I searched thru the posts here trying to find where you said the above but I could find nothing.  Then I thought "wait a minute"' and sure enough, you had posted that on OUR.  That is really poor forum etiquette sir and not very commendable!

Plus, do you realize that you and those in control of this forum may be bordering on libel with your statement above? 

As I stated on OUR, you are not worth wasting anymore time on.

Carry on-
Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 06:53:00 AM
All right M, you said you were a troll. Prove to us the Conservation of energy is a universal.

Why are you even entertaining this idiot?
Clearly he knows nothing about basic science. Conservation of energy baby, never gonna beat it, stop kidding yourselves.
rick f = scam con-man, bs-artist and liar just like TrollMan
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 20, 2019, 01:08:08 PM
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS


 Although originally a non-offensive reference to fishing by trolling for comments or suggestions, the term in Internetspeak (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Internet) has evolved and now refers to someone who engages in discussions purely to provoke or annoy. Because trolls take away from productive work, the ideal response is to starve the troll of attention by ignoring it and going about your usual business (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Business). People being people, though, someone usually takes the bait, which is why trolls are so notorious.
The term "troll" derives from Norse mythology (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Norse_mythology), where a troll is also an unhelpful being, in some descriptions appearing to be like a normal human and others to be quite ugly and slow-witted.
Many presume that troll refers to the ugly monsters who eat people alive, but the term derives from the practice in fishing of dragging a baited hook or lure behind a moving boat (trolling).[2] (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll#cite_note-2) In other words, trolls are looking for some sucker who'll bite.


Moral:  "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS"


I've seen this person on other sites and he is just a kid. They go through those phases. Usually when they are about 12 years old.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 20, 2019, 01:26:41 PM
This was taken from an interesting collection on information on one of Richards web Sites.
Rick Friedrich
Published on Nov 12, 2017
This goes into the idea that regular circuits do not tap into all the energy available in the process of power transfer and utilization. They are 90 degrees out in collection.


perhaps Rick could explain the 90 degrees phase shift principle when he can find and divert some time to whats highlighted since this thread is about .
 Confirmation of OU devices and claims

I'm sure we would all find this 'very' interesting.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 20, 2019, 02:14:37 PM
AG  That site has been reorganised (Cheniere)  to offer information for sale. It is or rather (used to be) Tom Bearden's site.  I don't know who controls it now as apparently Tom is too old now.


Rick covers much of the Heavyside component here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-Q77slGAw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-Q77slGAw)   for free.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on July 20, 2019, 03:29:52 PM
Hi Rick,


if I may ask, with the setup on your boat (or similar setups you've used), did you charge the batteries straight negatively with conversion on the input side of circuit or did you charge the batteries with cap dump. If cap dump, at how many volts did you dump the cap?


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on July 20, 2019, 03:48:12 PM
since this thread is about .
 Confirmation of OU devices and claims

I'm sure we would all find this 'very' interesting.

I'm sure you will not find anything at all,nor will there be any confirmation of an OU device in relation to the topic at hand.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on July 20, 2019, 03:49:21 PM
It is or rather (used to be) Tom Bearden's site.  I don't know who controls it now as apparently Tom is too old now.


Tom is also broke,and still hooked to the grid  ::)


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on July 20, 2019, 03:55:16 PM
Prove to us the Conservation of energy is a universal.

It is not. The fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate,is proof that the conservation of energy dose not apply in an open system ,nor dose it hold.

The conservation of energy only applies to closed system's,and is not a universal law.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 20, 2019, 04:19:48 PM
It is not. The fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate,is proof that the conservation of energy dose not apply in an open system ,nor dose it hold.

The conservation of energy only applies to closed system's,and is not a universal law.


Brad
Really thats what i said, create an disruption pulse faster than the rise time of an electron through a piece of wire ( current / magnetic influence) a 'nano pulse' you can fill a capacitor at light speed.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2019, 04:28:26 PM
Really thats what i said, create an disruption pulse faster than the rise time of an electron through a piece of wire ( current / magnetic influence) a 'nano pulse' you can fill a capacitor at light speed.
Maybe you can, but I can't, and I don't know anyone else who can either. I have a fair amount of experience filling capacitors one way or another and measuring how long it takes, and so do my friends and colleagues. Also in generating "nano pulses".

So please demonstrate. Not by linking to some sketchy theoretical document, but by showing your own work and measurements. Is that really too much to ask, even in _this_ thread where claims apparently don't need support?



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2019, 04:31:39 PM
AG  That site has been reorganised (Cheniere)  to offer information for sale. It is or rather (used to be) Tom Bearden's site.  I don't know who controls it now as apparently Tom is too old now.


Rick covers much of the Heavyside component here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-Q77slGAw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-Q77slGAw)   for free.
Too bad there aren't any True Experiments in there. If Effect A is alleged to be caused by Cause B, not only do you need to show that A occurs in the presence of B, but that Effect A _does not occur_ unless Cause B is present, and that no other Cause can result in Effect A. Get it? Null hypothesis testing.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2019, 04:35:43 PM
I'm sure you will not find anything at all,nor will there be any confirmation of an OU device in relation to the topic at hand.


Brad
Yep. Almost a hundred pages of non-confirmation, of no OU devices.... but plenty of claims!

I swear, I've never seen anyone outside of politics be so incapable of answering a "yes or no" question with a simple Yes or No.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 08:19:17 PM
Mario,
I am thinking about putting together a collection of many pictures and videos of the boat that I have not shown online. Kind of like people do on EValbum where I showed my Porsche EV conversion. I found some old files and will see what I can do. The big 1979 26' Reinell EV conversions (as I did two different motors to compare) evolved from the rider lawnmower. I started with a huge monopole model and later used the other motor that was more suitable for vehicles. Then I added two more 60 pound coils to it and put it in the old boat after I had first tested it with my forklift motor I had in the EV Honda. I later made a smaller commercial model of the motor and ran that on other boats... The idea of doing boats came from two different customers who had bought parts from me and made their own very large motors (bigger than mine) that they had on their big sale boats as their only electrical supply and means of moving when there was no wind. These guys travelled around the world and I would ship one of them parts here and there as they needed them.

I have usually used the cap dump when I have rotated the batteries around like that, unless I add something else to the front end.  In the first lawnmower I used 5 very big paralleled caps. I'll have to check (as I still have them) but I believe around 80,000 uf and at least 100V. I had a very big SCR, which I still have as well. But usually I used higher voltage, at least 450V for my setups, and tried to have flash or fast switching. After the first motor I used higher voltage.

Hi Rick,
if I may ask, with the setup on your boat (or similar setups you've used), did you charge the batteries straight negatively with conversion on the input side of circuit or did you charge the batteries with cap dump. If cap dump, at how many volts did you dump the cap?
thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 20, 2019, 08:26:20 PM
For people with maybe not so much experience in 'over unity' experimentation,
I will try to explain and demonstrate here in a simple and straightforward way why just
looking at the brightness of bulbs (LED or otherwise) can't tell you anything too meaningful
or definite about how a circuit is really performing.

A picture was posted here of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 LED bulbs (I think
they were stated as being LED bulbs) and the stated input power to his setup was 0.864 Watts.
It was implied that lighting 11 or 12 of those bulbs fairly brightly at less than 1 Watt input power
was something that should be considered quite impressive and an indication of possible over unity (OU).

Please see the three attached photos.
Photo 01:  Picture of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 bulbs at a stated 0.864 Watts = 864 mW input power.

Photo 02:  My comparison of lighting a single LED bulb quite brightly.
Can you tell how much power this bulb is consuming from just looking at how bright it is? Of course you can't.
I had spots in front of my eyes from looking at this bulb when I was setting it up to take a photo of it. :)
It was very bright when looking at it directly.

Photo 03:  Measurement of the power consumption of my single LED bulb.
3 Volts x .02 Amps = 0.06 Watts = 60 mW

If I were to light 14 of my LED bulbs at the same time, the total power consumption of my setup would be:
14 x 60 mW = 0.840 Watts =  840 mW

I hope this simple comparison test clarifies why people are (and should be) quite skeptical of any type of circuit
arrangement supposedly being over unity without proper measurements being shown.
Don't be fooled by any max or 'equivalent' power ratings which may be specified for a given LED bulb.
Those numbers can be quite misleading.

What matters is the actual power consumption of each LED bulb being lighted while connected in the circuit setup.
You can only determine that by doing proper measurements. My rough comparison test shown in the photos below
seems to indicate that Rick's results shown in that photo do not appear to be anything too unusual,
and only if proper measurements are taken could the actual efficiency of the setup be determined with any degree of certainty.

Hope this clarifies some things. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on July 20, 2019, 08:38:25 PM

Rick,


where these the voltage ratings of the caps or did you actually dump 100 or even 450V into the battery?!! I thought batteries get ruined with such high voltage dumps,


Mario


Mario,
I am thinking about putting together a collection of many pictures and videos of the boat that I have not shown online. Kind of like people do on EValbum where I showed my Porsche EV conversion. I found some old files and will see what I can do. The big 1979 26' Reinell EV conversions (as I did two different motors to compare) evolved from the rider lawnmower. I started with a huge monopole model and later used the other motor that was more suitable for vehicles. Then I added two more 60 pound coils to it and put it in the old boat after I had first tested it with my forklift motor I had in the EV Honda. I later made a smaller commercial model of the motor and ran that on other boats... The idea of doing boats came from two different customers who had bought parts from me and made their own very large motors (bigger than mine) that they had on their big sale boats as their only electrical supply and means of moving when there was no wind. These guys travelled around the world and I would ship one of them parts here and there as they needed them.

I have usually used the cap dump when I have rotated the batteries around like that, unless I add something else to the front end.  In the first lawnmower I used 5 very big paralleled caps. I'll have to check (as I still have them) but I believe around 80,000 uf and at least 100V. I had a very big SCR, which I still have as well. But usually I used higher voltage, at least 450V for my setups, and tried to have flash or fast switching. After the first motor I used higher voltage.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 08:39:23 PM
Brad,
I've been to his home two different times, a long time ago mind you, but he was doing well as far as I could see. How do you know he is broke?

As for these guys being hooked to the grid that is a point to consider. If you have the ability why not use the technology. We tried to get Bedini to at least make an electric bike but all he wanted to do was have gas Harley's and hotrods. He gave the impression to people that he was running the shop with his systems but he never did. Mind you it would have been a big ordeal to get the three phase all done, but there wasn't anything being run at all. In all those years I was the only one that ran his machines now and then, otherwise they were collecting dust. That is why I always tried to show people practical systems actually being used. Now one of the things Bearden said to me while we were walking through his garage was that he wasn't a bench guy and didn't have anything to show me. That was 2005 and I found that strange and assumed he wasn't running his home off of this tech. I didn't get into that subject but rather what would it take for the whole country to be changed over (another subject). I don't know who these guys really were, or what their motivations were for doing what they did, and not using what they had, but we never got what they promised in 1984. They were about teasing the public with mixed information and not about using it. Bedini told me not to do the kits and I thought he was just joking around. He said to just talk and that is enough. I did my own thing and in the end I guess I went too far in what I showed.

Tom is also broke,and still hooked to the grid  ::)
Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 08:54:20 PM
The high voltage is not a problem, it is the current. I moved from high uf to low. And you regulate the rate of change impulsing of the cap dump to be gentle enough, but to also allow for the ability to rotate the batteries around.
Regular cap dump pulse chargers ruin batteries over time.

Rick,
where these the voltage ratings of the caps or did you actually dump 100 or even 450V into the battery?!! I thought batteries get ruined with such high voltage dumps,
Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 20, 2019, 09:14:44 PM
Void,merci beaucoup for the well done measurement and comparison !
I think this is a point where also Itsu get his satisfaction !


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on July 20, 2019, 09:27:09 PM

Rick, thanks. So are you saying the cap dump turn on time shouldn't be as fast and abrupt as possible? Also, when negatively charging (diode) the additional gain is to be found in the battery. If we use a small cap, even high voltage, where do you think the gain is entering the system, the small cap or the battery, and if the battery, can we still consider it positively charged?
Sorry for these basic questions, but after all the confusion and after many experiments there is still uncertainty, especially after JB and Peter recommended big caps in the latest guide...


Mario

The high voltage is not a problem, it is the current. I moved from high uf to low. And you regulate the rate of change impulsing of the cap dump to be gentle enough, but to also allow for the ability to rotate the batteries around.
Regular cap dump pulse chargers ruin batteries over time.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 10:04:16 PM
This is what happens when people are so intent on disproving someone that they end up doing the very thing they are accusing others of. They forget to read the title of the video. hmmm I wonder what they WHOLE point of the video was? BUT FIRST NOTICE SOMETHING. THIS ALSO CONFIRMS MY POINT:

Notice Void has 10ma (0.01A) on his supply and the other meter reads 20ma. So which is it? How can anyone go from a picture to conclude these things exactly? This is assuming you can prove something over the internet.

But consider, is it ever right to believe an OU claim based upon a picture and video with words? The critics exception to that is when they will make a conclusion upon one part of such picture or video which somehow they decide is worthy to believe and that they are able to absolutely know the full context of. Further, while they reject a video or picture purporting to show something, because you can't determine such things with a video, etc., they make an exception for themselves while making a video or picture that makes an equal claim of their own.

The problem with his analogy is that my bulbs don't even come on until 6V, and only at 7V can they show any significant brightness. I have to get them to 7.4V @ 0.07A to get them to be at the 1/2W brightness they were at. Now they were slightly different brightness from each other, especially the one connected to the ferrite rod, so this is their average. And remember, these are not hf parts. This was 1.1MHz. Now the little LEDs on the smaller coils when combined are more than the input as well. That is obviously not the focus, but they also have to be added into the mix. They too have a minimum in which they will come on...

The point that is also forgotten is that I can keep adding more and more coils without affecting the input as G doesn't believe. If I had shown everyone, as I actually did at the meeting, the effect of adding more and more coils, then you would understand that. I eventually filled up the table and showed that anywhere I placed the big or small coils (most anywhere as there are some adverse relationships) that the input would stay the same or even go down without changing the other outputs (again some places no). If we had had the time we had another 50 coils I could have added. But the point was seen and we moved on to other demonstrations. This was not a point that these guys hadn't experienced already.

So Void is once again void of context who usually ends up proving the very thing he set out to disprove  :o  Some could wonder if he was doing this on purpose.  ;D

This was why I didn't show side by side, because I wanted to see these kinds of reactions that only prove my more important point. It is far more important for people to learn to be scientific than to even have OU. And I mean being honest. There is no science in thinking you can prove a truth of demonstration over the internet or video. Such credulity is the ruin of all science and all of society. Then the incredulity comes in with credulous disproofs of credulous claims. It's just madness!

Anyway, I was waiting for someone to do this sort of thing. That was perfect Void. Bravo! We have "Confirmation of" my most important "claims" on this thread. Now maybe this will be settled with at least you guys.

The other thing it shows, is just how much people take liberties to assume about what they see and what they read about what others have shared. They assume they know the context. But how can you if you are not there? This is the deeper matter, and implied by thinking you can prove something like this over video. Again, I care far more about people living a life where they forsake the confirmation bias methodology than I do about all technology combined. I really don't care if you have free energy if you run reckless with your judgments and perversions of reality. What good is free energy if you are dishonest about your reasoning? And it this case such a reckless methodology only keeps you from seeing the truth. And that applies to both sides here. If I, or those who believe in OU, just want to believe I have something I really don't, what good does that do? I have seen both sides do this. This is why I say this is 90-95% psychological. And a side point is that we need to see the good in our supposed failures in experiments. All results are telling us something we can learn from. If we don't have that attitude then we are probably in a state of confirmation bias. It is an ugly thing to see a skeptic disbelieve something that is obviously true to them. But it is just as ugly to believe something is true that is manifestly not.

For people with maybe not so much experience in 'over unity' experimentation,
I will try to explain and demonstrate here in a simple and straightforward way why just
looking at the brightness of bulbs (LED or otherwise) can't tell you anything too meaningful
or definite about how a circuit is really performing.

A picture was posted here of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 LED bulbs (I think
they were stated as being LED bulbs) and the stated input power to his setup was 0.864 Watts.
It was implied that lighting 11 or 12 of those bulbs fairly brightly at less than 1 Watt input power
was something that should be considered quite impressive and an indication of possible over unity (OU).

Please see the three attached photos.
Photo 01:  Picture of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 bulbs at a stated 0.864 Watts = 864 mW input power.

Photo 02:  My comparison of lighting a single LED bulb quite brightly.
Can you tell how much power this bulb is consuming from just looking at how bright it is? Of course you can't.
I had spots in front of my eyes from looking at this bulb when I was setting it up to take a photo of it. :)
It was very bright when looking at it directly.

Photo 03:  Measurement of the power consumption of my single LED bulb.
3 Volts x .02 Amps = 0.06 Watts = 60 mW

If I were to light 14 of my LED bulbs at the same time, the total power consumption of my setup would be:
14 x 60 mW = 0.840 Watts =  840 mW

I hope this simple comparison test clarifies why people are (and should be) quite skeptical of any type of circuit
arrangement supposedly being over unity without proper measurements being shown.
Don't be fooled by any max or 'equivalent' power ratings which may be specified for a given LED bulb.
Those numbers can be quite misleading.

What matters is the actual power consumption of each LED bulb being lighted while connected in the circuit setup.
You can only determine that by doing proper measurements. My rough comparison test shown in the photos below
seems to indicate that Rick's results shown in that photo do not appear to be anything too unusual,
and only if proper measurements are taken could the actual efficiency of the setup be determined with any degree of certainty.

Hope this clarifies some things. :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 10:11:03 PM
I wanted to capture this response also so if it gets deleted we can preserve it.

Void,merci beaucoup for the well done measurement and comparison !
I think this is a point where also Itsu get his satisfaction !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 20, 2019, 11:18:09 PM
Mario,
These are not really basic questions and there is nothing to be sorry about.

The cap charging and discharging is a whole science in itself. Of course for people just limiting themselves to linear processes they will assume condensers are linear. If I ever get around to the new Benitez kit that will be the point to look at. This is why I gave a hint in mentioning step charging... I'm still trying to come up with short terminology for classifying all the important phenomena about capacitors as a principle. Tesla spent a lot of words on this. He was not one to waste words either. Understanding the principles of free energy relating to capacitor charging and discharging is one of the most important as it relates to a good number of systems. I'm trying to think of a percentage, but it is probably 10-25%. Several of Don Smith's systems depend upon this. The batteries are kind of overlapping that somewhat, as they have similar responses. Of course Impulse and Resonance are key ingredients in this principle as always...

While people are still looking for free energy, I am focused on tuning it. I don't want a battery rotating system over or under charging. For the public we have code for the Arduino circuit that allows for basic monitoring of a battery periodically to determine if it needs to slightly discharge it so as to not over charge.

So yes, not as abrupt as possible or you will get more than you want, or it could even do damage. While I share a lot of information, I don't get into my proprietary research on all the details of ideal charging.

The additional gain is to be found on the entire path. That is why I have mentioned the third stage process. Gain of course is that which is useful as far as most people consider things. We don't care about the wire, but the wire and terminal size and characteristics make a difference because the energy is convergent. The gain in the battery is found in the battery over time. Even after the system is turned off it can continue to charge for extended periods of time. So rest is one gain that would not be expected. This is the opposite of constant current which is what man does contrary to nature.

The theory is that the whole path becomes a negative resistor where the energy converges into everything in the path. The impulse opens that door, and the current follows after that event. So a capacitor charges up as a result, but it copies the energy and discharges current after it's impulse event. So the negative event comes before the regular current flow. The Impulse gives you the benefits, but the current gives you a positive charge. Early on I realized that I could impulse a small cap into a bigger cap and the energy did not add up. The same thing is true when we have a tiny capacitor charging a big battery. It doesn't add up at all. The video AG linked to some weeks ago of the fake disproof of the fan kit gave the exact opposite claim. The liar said he couldn't even charge a tiny cap to 1V over many minutes. But I think most people here know that is not true at all. Now the secret is in considering why this all happens and what to do. I'm still deciding how much I want to say along these lines and more importantly how to properly word the principle.

Yeah, you can see big caps most of the time. Earlier pictures just before I got into this show even 3 1F caps I believe, and that would have a place for certain things. But it would do real damage to a fair size battery. Of course I started to see over time that Bedini was just a battery killer who really never did take the time to do experiments himself personally. He always had someone else do things from everything I witnessed and all the people I have spoke to during his whole career. That is fine if you take the time to properly pay attention to those you are copying or your staff who is doing the actual testing. John had very little to do with the battery chargers, and even the ones he made later on on his own he didn't test. After all, always promoted the worst battery killer of all, the Bedini Switch as it should be called (and not the Tesla Switch). You can't push current around in batteries without damage real fast.

As for the battery bible, that does not apply to this technology. Some of the that teaching gets into those manuals. There is some good things in there, but there isn't enough practical information to help people do things right. It reveals a lack of personal experience or an attempt to give people second best or worse. The context is that these are revelations from a god, the legend himself, who invented sliced bread and everything that came after it.  8) So everything is gold to be oohed and awed about. There is no proper context. There is a lot of content, but the need is not fulfilled. The most important thing that could have been added from the Bedini teaching is what we showed in video 7 as mentioned. Why was that left out? But my point is that these forums and such guides just create so much wasted time in people trying out what someone has shown without the proper understanding of the principles of free energy. So people bring into the replication of some parts their own context and hope to magically have some 'good' results. This what you get from storytelling teaching that is not principle based. Worship the living legend methodology. The thing is, that you still have things like DVD7 and several good things mentioned in documents, etc., but in the end you have to judge it all by the total effect it had on people. And that effect was long ago calculated. The effect was for people in general to fail, while only those who were 'worthy' would be able to sift through all the nonsense, stories, and personality fits, and figure out the true points. It was a game played out, with the expectation that most people would not succeed. It also appears that several things were intentionally given to the public to create failure, like the Tesla Switch to destroy their batteries. And of course what we find here with the big caps may have been along those lines. But also in his later insistence of not using neo magnets to distance himself from me and try and make me look like I was doing something wrong. But that just was also him limiting people from using neos which are fine to use, obviously. Trying to make battery chargers on his own, that were not doing the same thing as I was doing with my chargers, may be an example. I don't have time to review those manuals for the SG book to go over everything that could be mentioned. My point is that context and methodology is everything. What method you choose will determine your outcome.

Rick, thanks. So are you saying the cap dump turn on time shouldn't be as fast and abrupt as possible? Also, when negatively charging (diode) the additional gain is to be found in the battery. If we use a small cap, even high voltage, where do you think the gain is entering the system, the small cap or the battery, and if the battery, can we still consider it positively charged?
Sorry for these basic questions, but after all the confusion and after many experiments there is still uncertainty, especially after JB and Peter recommended big caps in the latest guide...


Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 20, 2019, 11:44:12 PM
Notice Void has 10ma (0.01A) on his supply and the other meter reads 20ma. So which is it? How can anyone go from a picture to conclude these things exactly?

Hi Rick, I truly am very embarrassed for you.
Anyone with even a basic understanding of using meters will understand that an ammeter which
only displays its current reading to two decimal places will display 0.01A from 10mA right up to a current
measurement of just under 20mA. :) This is why I was using my analog DC ammeter, which I have
tested compared to my digital ammeters and I know it is reasonably accurate as I have calibrated it recently.

The problem with his analogy is that my bulbs don't even come on until 6V, and only at 7V can they show any significant brightness.

I did not claim the LED bulb I tested with is the exact same bulb you are using. :)
Most any modern LED bulbs are all high efficiency and various LED bulbs with different voltage
ratings available these days should all perform at similar high efficiencies. My demo and explanation was not meant
to be an exact replication part for part, but just to show that LED bulbs which should have the same ballpark
efficiency as the LED bulbs you used can glow very brightly with only a relatively small power consumption,
and this can be confirmed if someone actually puts in the effort to measure the actual power consumption
of the LED bulbs in some sort of reasonable way, as Itsu was doing, for example.

Rick, I won't respond to the rest of your excuses and deflections and general hooey, as I am just too busy right now. :)
I think my demonstration speaks for itself. Without actual power measurements done in some sort of reasonable way,
no conclusions can be drawn about LED bulb power consumption. You will be 'in the dark' so to speak, and just guessing.


Void,merci beaucoup for the well done measurement and comparison !
I think this is a point where also Itsu get his satisfaction !

You are welcome!


P.S. Itsu: Please stick around. Your efforts have been very much appreciated around here over the years. :)

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2019, 11:58:50 PM
One does tend to wonder why there are only 14 LEDs lit in that famous photo, since there are plenty more coils and plenty more LED bulbs lying around.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 12:54:02 AM
One does tend to wonder why there are only 14 LEDs lit in that famous photo, since there are plenty more coils and plenty more LED bulbs lying around.

Hi TK. Well, I only counted 11 LED bulbs glowing and one LED bulb that seemed to be connected
but didn't appear to be glowing, in the screen shot of Rick. There might have been one or two more I couldn't see. :)

The bottom line of course is anyone with any understanding of electronics at all will know that you
can't reliably estimate output power on bulbs (of any type) by just looking at their brightness and
taking a guess at their power consumption. :) That at least should be a given in this forum at this point. :)

Also, some cheap LED bulbs can have some inefficient circuitry/components in them for matching
their nominal operating voltage to the voltage of the LED or LEDs inside the bulb, but when you connect such
bulbs up to a high frequency driver circuit, it can bypass any voltage regulating/current limiting circuitry
and cause the LEDs to light up even more efficiently than if you power them with their nominal voltage normally.
The LEDs them self will of course be operating at their typical high efficiency regardless however. Unfortunately, I suspect
that such things will be lost on Rick however, given his various comments here already.


Rick, this is not some 'war' that a person must try to 'win' at all costs using all manner of deflection and excuses,
etc. For at last some people here it is about facts and reality. What is really true, and what is not?
Not about 'winning' or 'losing'. If something is really true, it will be able to stand up to close scrutiny and proper testing
methodology. If you or someone else can demonstrate over unity in a reasonable way showing proper testing methods,
then great, you are in the right place. There are usually people here (or there were) who will be willing to put in the effort to
try to confirm or negate by replicating the circuitry or approach and put it through proper tests. The goal being to determine, 
'how is the setup really performing'?

Reality, what a concept! :)

All the best...


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 21, 2019, 01:08:45 AM
Wow, you are really just digging deeper and deeper. You must be a comedian.  :P You just can't help twisting reality. You have to tell a Void to cover up. Tell me how your picture shows that it is just under 20ma? It actually shows 22ma, unless you are looking sideways at it so that the angle makes it not 22ma but 19.999.  :o

So you can't even properly evaluate your own picture. Then you have to resort to another Void.

I am glad you are starting to feel your embarrassment.

This brings up the question, because your meter is obviously wrong, then why would your voltage reading be assumed to be correct. Maybe it is 12V? Maybe your analogue ma meter is turned way down? I'm just saying. So far you have been void of truth, especially in this last response. I actually didn't even remember the exact reading on the meter and actually assumed that you would not Void about that. But just to be sure I clicked back to look at the image, and I was just amazed  ::) Apparently you didn't bother to look. Or maybe you were just hoping no one would look back at the picture. Better go and photoshop that picture. Oh wait, I included a close up of it for everyone.

You won't admit my point at all. You just deflect entirely. You have not shown us anything here but that you are void of truth in your attempts to attack. And now you just prove my point. Again, my point is that you can't prove anything in pictures or video. I was waiting for this.

You say that:
"My demo and explanation was not meant to be an exact replication part for part". Or was it? For:
"just to show that LED bulbs which should have the same ballpark efficiency as the LED bulbs you used".
And you don't call that a Void assumption? Not at all the same load. The ones I have are very common. But again, they only start to come on at 6V, and were at 1/2W brightness. You assume I didn't measure. But I had shown all of you the measurements then you wouldn't have said all the things you have said over the last month. You would probably have just dismissed it in the ways you guys always do, and then I would have lost the opportunity to witness all the fallacies and deflections, etc. This gave the perfect opportunity to expose the games being played on this and other forums. It brought out the deeper issues as to why these forums don't work for any good. It brought out the confirmation bias. 

You won't address what I have to say because you can admit anything true here. You actually deflect and now will have to hide your face for a good while  :-[

You are right about one thing: "I think my demonstration speaks for itself." Once again Void of truth.

So tell me what is Void from your last statement? "Without actual power measurements done in some sort of reasonable way, no conclusions can be drawn about LED bulb power consumption."
I mean, I have done my power measurements. But what is missing from your statement--where's the Void? Again, it is my point:
"Without actual power measurements done in some sort of reasonable way," and reasonable as in the real world only, and not with the idea that such can be transferred over the Internet, "no conclusions can be drawn about LED bulb power consumption." But you did not do any of that. It was not even a "reasonable" power measurement, nor was it demonstrated in the real world to anyone who you were trying to convince. Just because you use the right words does not mean you understand or exercise reasonableness. You have been Void of the reason of my video, and Void of reason about what you have been saying. But at least you showed us your work finally. And yes, it speaks for itself!  ;D


Hi Rick, I truly am very embarrassed for you.
Anyone with even a basic understanding of using meters will understand that an ammeter which only displays its current reading to two decimal places will display 0.01A from 10mA right up to a current measurement of just under 20mA. :) This is why I was using my analog DC ammeter, which I have tested compared to my digital ammeters and I know it is reasonably accurate as I have calibrated it recently.

I did not claim the LED bulb I tested with is the exact same bulb you are using. :)
Most any modern LED bulbs are all high efficiency and various LED bulbs with different voltage
ratings available these days should all perform at similar high efficiencies. My demo and explanation was not meant to be an exact replication part for part, but just to show that LED bulbs which should have the same ballpark efficiency as the LED bulbs you used can glow very brightly with only a relatively small power consumption, and this can be confirmed if someone actually puts in the effort to measure the actual power consumption of the LED bulbs in some sort of reasonable way, as Itsu was doing, for example.

Rick, I won't respond to the rest of your excuses and deflections and general hooey, as I am just too busy right now. :)
I think my demonstration speaks for itself. Without actual power measurements done in some sort of reasonable way, no conclusions can be drawn about LED bulb power consumption. You will be 'in the dark' so to speak, and just guessing.
You are welcome!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 21, 2019, 01:18:55 AM
Wow, it is famous now.
There was maybe 90 coils, not 14.
I already explained why if you read. One does tend to wonder why people wonder when they don't bother to read what is written or look at the actual picture to see.
Come to think of if, I remember why in the meeting, it was because we only had that many capacitors.

One does tend to wonder why there are only 14 LEDs lit in that famous photo, since there are plenty more coils and plenty more LED bulbs lying around.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 21, 2019, 02:12:13 AM
There were two different demonstrations. The meeting had 15 3W bulbs with over 70 small coils. There were 10 big coils with bulbs, one ferrite coil with bulb, and 4 smaller coils with big bulbs (one under the table). I showed all of these at 0.75W input. In the video one of them had the wires touching but then I fixed that so it came back on.
The point is about the actual light produced with a light meter and/or what the power measurement on the bulb is. These are things to be done in the real world.
And yet you think you have somehow, from a picture and video, "reliably estimate output power on bulbs".

You deflect more importantly from the fact that it is a war. You guys are at war, and have been from the first. It is a constant psychological war where you continually twist the facts and pretend to be interested in OU. You deflect with mockery. You just repeat senseless things over and over while you accuse me of doing the very things you are doing. You hope that people will just read your words and pass over what I have actually said. But now you have been shown who you are.

Remember, everything you say is in your context of supposing that you can prove something over this forum. So it is Void of truth. Your point would mean something real if it referred to something done in real life. Not one of us is in each other's shops to see what the others are doing. So all these words are only saying what I have been the only person to insist upon. There is no "proper testing methods" over the internet. You don't even really give lip service to that fact. You just keep assuming this in whatever you say. Then you mock me for driving this truth home. Now I have shown various meter readings and self-runners, in videos. But when it comes down to it, you know that can never be enough. The best it could do is encourage you to want to try and do the same. You would never bank on someone else's work, especially someone you don't know at all (even those you talk to over the internet for years).

You guys lift yourself up as some superior people who are capable of doing measurements and being able to evaluate OU. You mock me as being the lowest in everything. Yet that is the most hypocritical of all when you reason in the context of the assumption that you can prove anything with video or pictures. It is the biggest delusion of all. No one has the burden of proving anything over the internet. That is impossible. Yet somehow you and some few remaining guys keep assuming that. You keep thinking that you can disprove or prove something like this here. As I said, this is only an information sharing place. I don't see Mario attacking me with his questions. He asked, I answered. I may be right I may be wrong. That is the extent of what this is about. You internet-proof-burden-guys are highly dramatic and hypochondriacs. Your anger and vicious attacks are based upon being upset that I have destroyed your hobby of just picking at people while not doing anything real. The onus is not on me to prove anything. I can only prove in the real world. My word is no different than a picture or video I show. They are but the same thing. You can think it is relevant enough to consider or just move along to something else. But your fixation upon it is revealing. It is because you actually believe it is real, and/or you are set on doing whatever it takes to suppress these ideas. You are desperate. You engage in lies and diversions and every fallacy. The personal attacks reveal that you are convinced this is important. You wouldn't reason with me at all if you really thought what you do about me. You may engage a few times and then just ignore. But no, there is a lot more going on here. Obviously, as we have I think 115000 views on this thread and that has largely been over the last month. Why is this so important to all of you? Why all the fuss? Is this not just an information exchange? No, you are worried someone may believe this. Why is that? What is so important about someone sharing the principles of OU? What is so bad about me sharing information and answering questions people are asking? Why is so wrong about me pointing out that you can't prove or disprove OU over the internet? Well you all know the answers. And that is why there is so much rage an insult. I've exposed the games an folly. I have shared rather important truths. This is frustrating for you because you have failed in your mission here. Does that mean you won't get paid? I don't know. Anyway, if anyone takes a step back, maybe stand behind your computer screen for once and consider what you have been doing here. Look at the back of your monitor and ask yourselves these questions. What am I really expecting from the other side of that screen? Is that the real world, or is this the real world? Maybe you think you are in a matrix or something. That is how some of you are acting. As if this is the real world and out there is too uneventful to be real or important enough to find verification. It's a serious condition that you need help with. You just can't get yourself so worked up about something that is only information sharing. There is no expectations here. Well there shouldn't be. But yet you guys are expecting so much more than that. For those of you doing that who are not trolls sent here, I understand that you are frustrated with others for what you believe has been wasting your time. But you are really frustrated with yourselves for being foolish enough to believe something is proven over the internet. Thus you take it out on anyone else. You then demand that someone prove something to you for merely sharing information. But those are two different things. So your fictional body language here is telling. You are very concerned with this. Even someone I'll not name, who says they were leaving came back because he knows it's real. Why else would you get yourself so upset about it?


Anyway, put that screen down and start living in the real world. Prove things out in the real world. Meet up with others in the real world. Buy a few meters that are real and actually working Void.  ;D

Hi TK. Well, I only counted 11 LED bulbs glowing and one LED bulb that seemed to be connected
but didn't appear to be glowing, in the screen shot of Rick. There might have been one or two more I couldn't see. :)

The bottom line of course is anyone with any understanding of electronics at all will know that you
can't reliably estimate output power on bulbs (of any type) by just looking at their brightness and
taking a guess at their power consumption. :) That at least should be a given in this forum at this point. :)

Also, some cheap LED bulbs can have some inefficient circuitry/components in them for matching
their nominal operating voltage to the voltage of the LED or LEDs inside the bulb, but when you connect such
bulbs up to a high frequency driver circuit, it can bypass any voltage regulating/current limiting circuitry
and cause the LEDs to light up even more efficiently than if you power them with their nominal voltage normally.
The LEDs them self will of course be operating at their typical high efficiency regardless however. Unfortunately, I suspect
that such things will be lost on Rick however, given his various comments here already.


Rick, this is not some 'war' that a person must try to 'win' at all costs using all manner of deflection and excuses,
etc. For at last some people here it is about facts and reality. What is really true, and what is not?
Not about 'winning' or 'losing'. If something is really true, it will be able to stand up to close scrutiny and proper testing
methodology. If you or someone else can demonstrate over unity in a reasonable way showing proper testing methods,
then great, you are in the right place. There are usually people here (or there were) who will be willing to put in the effort to
try to confirm or negate by replicating the circuitry or approach and put it through proper tests. The goal being to determine, 
'how is the setup really performing'?

Reality, what a concept! :)

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 21, 2019, 02:54:30 AM
I think you should focus on Rick's tracing of the history of OU patents and how they can be modernized. This info is independent of whether you agree with Rick or not.  In any case those of you in the USA are free to go to one of Rick's meetings, bring your own scopes and meters and do your own tests.  Then there is no need for all these outbursts.  Just go and see him in the real world.  Nothing I have read here from the anti-Rick brigade has swayed me one bit. .  I have learnt a lot from you guys. And I have learned a lot more from Rick. I can only say thank you Rick.  You have explained a lot of mysteries. There is only one to go for me and you know what that is.  Thanks again Rick.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 21, 2019, 03:08:56 AM
One of the first claims that I tested was that the introduction of more coils increased the total magnetic field in the Resonance induction coupler kit. I used a gause meter and it proved positive.
The next thing I tested was the magnetic field on the big coil just out of resonance and in resonance.  The result was a MASSIVE difference. A HUGE increase in the magnetic field at resonance.
If you have a plasma ball or plasma tube and use the gaussmeter you will see an even greater magnetic field which is exactly why Don Smith showed a plasma ball ou device.

You need a gauss meter to understand what Rick is talking about.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 04:24:21 AM
One of the first claims that I tested was that the introduction of more coils increased the total magnetic field in the Resonance induction coupler kit. I used a gause meter and it proved positive.
The next thing I tested was the magnetic field on the big coil just out of resonance and in resonance.  The result was a MASSIVE difference. A HUGE increase in the magnetic field at resonance.
If you have a plasma ball or plasma tube and use the gaussmeter you will see an even greater magnetic field which is exactly why Don Smith showed a plasma ball ou device.

You need a gauss meter to understand what Rick is talking about.

No, a.king. Perhaps a person 'needs' a gauss meter if they prefer to be lead down the garden path. :-)
There are lots of people like that in this world who really prefer to blindly believe instead of making an effort to move
forward with actual understanding.

It is a given that a coil operating at resonance will have a stronger magnetic field. :) That is electronics 101. :)
That tells you nothing about overall circuit efficiency. Nothing whatsoever...

If someone truly wants to understand how a circuit is performing they must compare average output power to average
input power. All else is empty hand waving and folly. :) I understand fully that such distinctions will often be completely
lost on people who do not have a half decent grasp of electronics and physics, and that is why the cycle of wild unsubstantiated
claims never ends here and elsewhere. :) This will not likely ever change any time soon. Many people in this world operate primarily at
the level of belief and ignore and block that which is not compatible with what they prefer to believe. That is probably a good part why
the human race is heading towards destruction with the pedal to the metal. Most in this world are oblivious to what we are
really doing. :) The bottom line is, like Bedini, Rick has not demonstrated anything in any sort of reasonable way, that
I have seen anyway, that even suggests over unity. People can choose to ignore this if they like and believe whatever they like,
and ignore basic measurement and testing principles, etc., but they are only fooling them self in the long run.
I know these are all probably wasted words here for the most part, but I chose to type them anyway.  ;D

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 21, 2019, 04:51:06 AM
Glad to see you moving forward with your expert example. Not sure I can afford your equipment  ;)  Maybe A.king can show you how to celebrate it with a screw driver.  8) oops that would go against your "actual understanding" of how to do "basic measurement and testing principles" over the internet. Can't have any work done in the real world because here we are only "fooling" ourselves and "believe whatever."
[/quote]
really prefer to blindly believe instead of making an effort to move forward with actual understanding.

I understand fully … and believe whatever ... and ignore basic measurement and testing principles, etc., but they are only fooling them self in the long run.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 05:45:30 AM
Funny. You don't even bother to read short comments before you reply to them, do you.  The image below preserves my comment and your nonsensical response. 

No, the reason you don't have all the coils connected to all the LEDs with all of them shining is not because you forgot to bring enough capacitors.  Perhaps you don't have enough capacitors all right, but not because you "forgot" to bring them.  Let's see... you remembered to bring the coils and LEDs but somehow forgot the caps?  And that's why you can't provide a convincing or even a very impressive demonstration? What will it be next time, not enough colored clipleads? Until you provide evidence otherwise, the default conclusion is that you simply can't do it, and not having enough capacitors is a convenient explanation for why not.


Cheap power supply digital panel meters, with a tenth of an amp precision, uncalibrated,  for OU data? I laugh out loud.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 21, 2019, 06:19:12 AM
You're really desperate. I ordered 100 pack and sent out 10 of them. I was referring to the meeting, not my video. If you will feel better I could do it again once I get more in. I could do a few layers.
If you bothered to actually read the dialogue, oh yeah, you came in at the last minute and then wanted all the attention without caring about the context, then you would have realized that no one was caring about the small coils and leds anyway. They were only considering the big coils and bulbs. Even Void wouldn't even have made such a foolish argument. But actually he only calculated for the big coils and forgot to consider all the smaller coils. You guys are just desperate. Go get some solar panels and do something productive with your life.

Funny. You don't even bother to read short comments before you reply to them, do you.  The image below preserves my comment and your nonsensical response. 

No, the reason you don't have all the coils connected to all the LEDs with all of them shining is not because you forgot to bring enough capacitors.  Perhaps you don't have enough capacitors all right, but not because you "forgot" to bring them.  Let's see... you remembered to bring the coils and LEDs but somehow forgot the caps?  And that's why you can't provide a convincing or even a very impressive demonstration? What will it be next time, not enough colored clipleads? Until you provide evidence otherwise, the default conclusion is that you simply can't do it, and not having enough capacitors is a convenient explanation for why not.


Cheap power supply digital panel meters, with a tenth of an amp precision, uncalibrated,  for OU data? I laugh out loud.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 21, 2019, 06:28:41 AM
Hahaha!! I actually missed your last line. I have to agree with this point. I'm laughing with you, as well as at you.  ;D Wow! You actually are mocking me for Void's meters.  :o Shows you didn't even bother to read the last posts.  ::) You guys are doing a great job of taking out each other.  :-[

Funny. You don't even bother to read short comments before you reply to them, do you.  The image below preserves my comment and your nonsensical response.

Cheap power supply digital panel meters, with a tenth of an amp precision, uncalibrated,  for OU data? I laugh out loud.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 01:11:54 PM
You're the one relying on the PSU panel meters for your claims Rick, we've all seen you do it. Void is simply illustrating how they work and how imprecise they can be.    :o
And I don't care what you say... I care what you DEMONSTRATE, and your PHOTO to which I referred in my comment DEMONSTRATES a bunch of coils without visible loads and a few measly LEDs lit to a dim glow, with sufficient power INPUT to your system fully to account what you DEMONSTRATE. It also DEMONSTRATES that you have a lot more coils and LEDs that you want people to think you "could" have connected.

If that's your OU.... you are being laughed at, by a lot more people than just me. You are being laughed at by the real builders and experimenters on at least two forums.  I can put a bucket out in my yard and catch water from my sprinkler system. The bucket fills up, and I can even put a dozen more buckets out there and they will all fill up, and without putting any additional load on my sprinklers.  That is all you are doing with your "OU".

Demonstrate the validity of your claims. Or admit that you cannot. Think about what Chet has told you, and search deeply within your soul, and ask yourself.... "Is that right?"


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 21, 2019, 01:12:58 PM
Funny. You don't even bother to read short comments before you reply to them, do you.  The image below preserves my comment and your nonsensical response. 


  And that's why you can't provide a convincing or even a very impressive demonstration? What will it be next time, not enough colored clipleads? Until you provide evidence otherwise, the default conclusion is that you simply can't do it, and not having enough capacitors is a convenient explanation for why not.




Cheap power supply digital panel meters, with a tenth of an amp precision, uncalibrated,  for OU data? I laugh out loud.

You are only acting like someone very pathetic, with this kind of speech.
You're just trying to ridicule RF, but with that kind of attitude you look more like a bully.
And for what ?   Does that make you happy?  certally to many persons not maybe to others make them happy  .The slaughter already started a few posts ago.
But you could resist came again,  Besides, it's what usually happens all the time.
 What contribution do you hope to make with this speech?   Interesting in RF work???????????  Seems really not,  by the many videos that you post glorifying you  and ask is this OU ? OHHHHH that is very productive  to this thread ......

You're ashamed!

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 01:16:55 PM
You are only acting like someone very pathetic, with this kind of speech.
You're just trying to ridicule RF, but with that kind of attitude you look more like a bully.
And for what ?   Does that make you happy?  certally to many persons not maybe to others make them happy  .The slaughter already started a few posts ago.
But you could resist came again,  Besides, it's what usually happens all the time.
 What contribution do you hope to make with this speech?   Interesting in RF work? ??? ??? ??? ?  Seems really not,  by the many videos that you post glorifying you  and ask is this OU ? OHHHHH that is very productive  to this thread ......

You're ashamed!
Another false claimant raises his head! I'm ashamed? Nope, everything I say is true and supported by evidence and replication, I have no need to be ashamed. You, on the other hand, are HILARIOUS.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 21, 2019, 02:01:33 PM
Another false claimant raises his head! I'm ashamed? Nope, everything I say is true and supported by evidence and replication, I have no need to be ashamed. You, on the other hand, are HILARIOUS.
What false claims are you refering?
Where you  read my false claims ?
You are just a poor personality person, Thays choose be a Bully since i met you on this fórum.
Tem vergonha ! Have shame!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 02:05:48 PM
Here I must clarify ...I wrote a post I removed at Over unity research forum ..
I will spend a minute [be back
well to be Blunt ...people are dying miserable deaths as we type here ..species are passing from existence globally at rates never before seen [do to deforestation from burning and ....? and the fix for that..?.. is claimed to be in the hands of some typing here
Tinsel has no OU to change this ? Nor do I ..

 I wrote to Rick that "onto whom soever much is given Much is required" ..he is a man of faith. me too...and many here and elsewhere ,since we are not talking about biscuit recipes ..but Lives...maybe its not your children or my children dying at this moment..is that what makes it ok to have ten year plans ??can't feel it here so all is well  we flush water down the toilets cleaner than billions have to drink ?thats OK we have no issue with that ?
TEN SECONDS is too long ..keeping secrets ...that would save lives of innocents ??you can't have big enuff plans of involve enuff people  little groups here and there..or plans with this guy and that guy..?
use the biggest Venue you can find ...and get it out there anyway you can..or play God and decide who lives and dies..[I feel Rick is doing this ..] because that is irrefutable ...children are suffering and dying ..species are going extinct
not talking about global warming and such..

in this work you better be prepared for the consequences...and I mean your responsibility to this world
peoples lives depend on this tech..fighting ...dilly dallying ...making money ..... ???
at what cost ?
read the mission statement here
I don't believe one man here would walk past a house on fire.. hearing screams from the children inside.
worst part ...its happening as we fight here...every second every breathe .
and I have read the writings of persons with clean water to flush and refrigerators filled with foodsaying "you can;t give them This.. it will ruin our world..."
some think its a game here or just for saving money to buy more stuff ?
its a responsibility [read the mission statement ...



 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 21, 2019, 02:09:03 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4iWoCJ_t24
 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 21, 2019, 03:00:24 PM
Chet:  This also applies to Wesley who claims to have several ou devices.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 21, 2019, 03:05:15 PM
Chet:  This also applies to Wesley who claims to have several ou devices.
Are you sure about that?? You should check that out with him. To my knowledge, Rick is the only person on this forum claiming that he has an OU device(s).
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 03:10:09 PM
You are only acting like someone very pathetic, with this kind of speech.
You're just trying to ridicule RF, but with that kind of attitude you look more like a bully.
And for what ?   Does that make you happy?  certally to many persons not maybe to others make them happy  .The slaughter already started a few posts ago.
But you could resist came again,  Besides, it's what usually happens all the time.
 What contribution do you hope to make with this speech?   Interesting in RF work???????????  Seems really not,  by the many videos that you post glorifying you  and ask is this OU ? OHHHHH that is very productive  to this thread ......

You're ashamed!

Hi Nelson. I have to disagree with you on this one.
Rick has been saying a lot of irrational things here and acting very ignorantly towards others here as well.
It is clear to me he doesn't even know how to make basic proper measurements for goodness sake. :)

I normally try to give people the benefit of the doubt if it looks like they might possibly have something unusual,
even if it is just a small possibility, but Rick really has been talking a lot of nonsense here and outright trolling
as well. It's pretty hard to take someone seriously who behaves like that. You can't blame anyone
for speaking out against such things. I'd hate to see well meaning people get lead down the garden path by this guy.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 03:22:33 PM
My entire point is .    Rick professes a Christian belief system ..
his first and only steps with such a belief system with lives in the balance ...should be to share help teach..everywhere and anyone or anything that would listen... he should teach the Lamp post ..and not in code...we have people who don't speak his language and struggle ?
perfect the presentation ..Pics.. schematics ..diagrams anticipated results ..expectations ..help line to others who teach ...etc etc etc
definitely not fight with persons trying to ...Teach ..help perfect the presentation ..Pics.. schematics ..diagrams anticipated results ..expectations ..help line to others who teach ...etc etc etc because they know lives depend on that..
Not safe to do that ? drop a PM and watch what happens...


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 21, 2019, 03:28:46 PM
Hi Nelson. I have to disagree with you on this one.
Rick has been saying a lot of irrational things here and acting very ignorantly towards others here as well.
It is clear to me he doesn't even know how to make basic proper measurements for goodness sake. :)

I normally try to give people the benefit of the doubt if it looks like they might possibly have something unusual,
even if it is just a small possibility, but Rick really has been talking a lot of nonsense here and outright trolling
as well. It's pretty hard to take someone seriously who behaves like that. You can't blame anyone
for speaking out against such things. I'd hate to see well meaning people get lead down the garden path by this guy.

All the best...

I dont care about your  disagree with me , you could disagree about what i say , it is you problem , like me you are free to give opinion  . To me what is not aceptable  is such behavior demonstrated .
Nonsense is what i hear many persons say until now in this thread , only interested to get down a person(RF) . You are free to leave the thread why is you complain  Void ?   And yes i agree unfortunately with RF when he says that mosts persons in this thread only have a offensive  intentions, not interested in understand  what he show .  And that's the real point .

All the best...
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 21, 2019, 03:39:43 PM
There are at least three people who have contributed to this forum who have had a nasty visit when they showed what some of the posters here are demanding.


I get told things all the time that are highly confidential so will not betray my contacts.


Rick is exactly aware of this, so stop attacking him.  Do the experiments and then attack if they do not work. Rick will not cross the line so you can moan and groan all you like.  If you don't believe him then fine.


I have spoken to several of these individuals also.


Don't be so naive guys.




Remember Romero?? for one....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 21, 2019, 03:40:32 PM
I dont care about your  disagree with me , you could disagree about what i say , it is you problem , like me you are free to give opinion  . To me what is not aceptable  is such behavior demonstrated .
Nonsense is what i hear many persons say until now in this thread , only interested to get down a person(RF) . You are free to leave the thread why is you complain  Void ?   And yes i agree unfortunately with RF when he says that mosts persons in this thread only have a offensive  intentions, not interested in understand  what he show .  And that's the real point .

All the best...
The truth is, that Rick gives as good as he gets.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 03:40:42 PM
I dont care about your  disagree with me , you could disagree about what i say , it is you problem , like me you are free to give opinion  . To me what is not aceptable  is such behavior demonstrated .
Nonsense is what i hear many persons say until now in this thread , only interested to get down a person(RF) . You are free to leave the thread why is you complain  Void ?   And yes i agree unfortunately with RF when he says that mosts persons in this thread only have a offensive  intentions, not interested in understand  what he show .  And that's the real point .

All the best...

Hi Nelson. It looks like we disagree then. I think the situation is the exact opposite
of what you said. If someone is at least making some sense, I would normally try to give that person
the benefit of the doubt, but Rick really has been talking quite a lot of nonsense and outright trolling here.
If he had shown some signs here of being able to interact with others reasonably, that would be quite different,
but that is not the case. Sorry.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 03:50:57 PM
A king..quote..There are at least three people who have contributed to this forum who have had a nasty visit when they showed what some of the posters here are demanding.


I get told things all the time that are highly confidential so will not betray my contacts.


Rick is exactly aware of this, so stop attacking him.  Do the experiments and then attack if they do not work. Rick will not cross the line so you can moan and groan all you like.  If you don't believe him then fine.


I have spoken to several of these individuals also.


Don't be so naive guys.




Remember Romero?? for one....end quote
  That excuse goes out the door at Over unity research forum..he was told drop it there and leave or PM or whatever and watch what happens ... same here..in case he missed it.. I write it again .no more secrets..
end of story....let the "world wide teaching begin ..everywhere ! pics schematics results...free to the world. read the mission statement here..
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 21, 2019, 03:51:04 PM
There are at least three people who have contributed to this forum who have had a nasty visit when they showed what some of the posters here are demanding.


Do the experiments and then attack if they do not work.

That's why he is being attacked! Who's being naive here.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 04:14:03 PM
You want to see passion ..?  .here is a man who wrote another Mission statement
does it sound timid or wishy washy ?
F6FLT...quote 2019 and beyond (https://overunity.com/18109/2019-and-beyond/msg529276/#msg529276)  « on: January 01, 2019, 01:13:23 PM » Quote (https://overunity.com/18109/2019-and-beyond/post/quote/529276/last_msg/529455/)

 
Even if many things divide us, what do we share? I think it is a common philosophy, a common aspiration, a common goal: progress for humanity, at least material for what we can do.
We are not afraid of technology, we believe that put at the service of man, it can improve his fate, and in this we continue the work of our forebears, who invented fire, the wheel, printing press, railways, medicine, electricity, telecommunications... and propelled man to the moon.
We are not afraid of technology, we could experiment with nuclear reactions like LENRs with the usual radiation safety precautions, and we are willing to take some risks to succeed, because in the face of the unknown no prediction can be made but the gain can be enormous.
We are not afraid of technology, we believe that we must use it by making it cleaner, with less pollution impact, even if we also know that zero pollution is impossible. Our life on earth will always have an impact, living is polluting.

Clearly today, energy is the main source of problems that penalize material progress, particularly because of its pollution and cost. Getting a clean and cheap one is therefore the target of our attention, and this forum is dedicated to it.

Although our goal seems respectable, we have enemies. Let us make no mistake about them. Our enemies are not industry or academic science. People who produce goods or knowledge, engineers, physicists, technicians, are like us. Certainly their leaders are focused on finance, but as long as they have new products to sell that will interest people, they will produce them, including those of free energy if it was ready. Because even the oil industry and Arab princes know that petrol will end and they are ready to invest in new technologies.
So who are our enemies?

Contrary to appearances, our enemies are those who seem to be on our side but are not: some of the environmentalists. Part of this movement is made up of anti-technology fundamentalists. They use ecology as a pretext only to fight industry and capitalism. For them, technology is opposed to Nature, they are afraid by technology, it is their target. It is not a caricature to say that they may make us regress and take us back to cave times. In fact, this is certainly what will happen if we follow their retrograde and reactionary ideology. This part of the ecologists is only in an ideological approach like these other political ideologies that have killed millions of people with the idea of a paradise thanks to the Aryan race or the permanent revolution. Beware of them, beware of their manipulation under the pretext of a green planet or the good of future generations.
 
The interest of future generations is to benefit from the new discoveries and inventions that we can make now, just as we take advantage of the risks taken by past generations in their work, such as the electrification of countries, hygiene and health conditions, rapid transport, cheap food....

Free energy is part of this interest for future generations. Obviously, if free energy were obtained, I think that our psychological profile would lead us to other priorities. What after free energy? A few leads, maybe some science fiction to make us dream.
Transport seems archaic and could be a new target, especially with inertial propulsion or gravity engineering. It is the only way that can open the Stargate to us.
Direct telecommunications between people, without the intermediaries such as telephone operators who monopolize and control the networks, possibly with the connivance of governments, also seems to be a priority. New P2P telecommunication vectors without a network are therefore to be sought, including in terms of speed, as the velocity of light is far too slow to maintain human cohesion if man were to leave the solar system.
Finally, I note that our brain seems to be reaching its limits in terms of discoveries, science is progressing less and less quickly. Artificial intelligence could be a solution to revitalize technological progress, including by integrating us as humans into this process.

Curiosity and progress are one of life's interests, we don't know what we're going to find but looking for it is exciting, while having to reproduce indefinitely the lifestyle of our forefathers is for me an image of hell.
So, brothers and sisters in spirit, let us try to improve life on earth by our small contribution: good free energy 2019 for all of us!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 21, 2019, 04:15:21 PM
Strange init  ;D when Richard, Nick first came onto the tread I kept asking him questions about stuff but then there is hidden stuff
so how do you ask for verification if you don't have a clue  :o other than beating round the bush some what, I think this was taken
initially as testing rick and took me a while to iron things out but I suppose was annoying for starters as i'm not to good at constant reading of pages on the screen.

Still fellers stick with it if you want to learn.

HOPPY and ITSU I HAVE SOME THING THAT MIGHT HELP YOU BUT IT'S NOT FOR EVERYONE'S EYES.
can i send it to you ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 04:15:42 PM
I am crushed, absolutely crushed, to hear that Rick doesn't think we watch his videos. While he freely admits that he doesn't have time to watch ours! 

 :'(
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 21, 2019, 04:15:56 PM
   Nelson:   As I have mentioned here previously, I appreciate you and your work very much. But, I have to agree with the other guys here, (other than a.king), that we are getting no where with this thread. And that we need more information and tests showing results, than what has been provided so far.
   If no more actual proof is going to be shown, with proper scope readings and measurements, no one here is going to waist time trying to see IF what has been presented is actually OU, or not. Unfortunately this has not happened, and we are expected to build replications, that don't work, without even being told what is wrong, all the while being insulted if we disagree, or ask for more verification of this type of device. 
   I think that if people like yourself, and Rick don't want to fully disclose and explain the results of your tests that you show, it's better to not post in a OPEN SOURCE forum. Or these, can be the results.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 04:17:33 PM
Here is something which is potentially interesting.
Obviously this could be a scam, and this guy is apparently looking for a lot of money from investors
according to some comments I have read.  However, if by some slim chance it really is a self-sustaining
generator, then it is interesting.

Looks like a sort of Bedini type 'school girl' pulse motor setup with a big flywheel, and based on some comments I
read, it may have a modified alternator inside it, possibly as the output alternator. I know it looks quite suspicious
because the output is 220V and he can power mains powered equipment with it without any problem,
so people are going to say probably hidden mains wires powering the loads, but what if it is not fake? ;)
If I understood correctly, it can supposedly power about 1kW of loads.
'Self Sustaining Power Generator'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSDCt-3BxUI

I know there is no way to tell if it is fake just from watching a video, but just thought it was an interesting
arrangement on the very slim chance that it might be legit. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 21, 2019, 04:17:34 PM
Hi Nelson. It looks like we disagree then. I think the situation is the exact opposite
of what you said. If someone is at least making some sense, I would normally try to give that person
the benefit of the doubt, but Rick really has been talking quite a lot of nonsense and outright trolling here.
If he had shown some signs here of being able to interact with others reasonably, that would be quite different,
but that is not the case. Sorry.

Hi Void ,we disagree , and it is true . And só what ? Should i stop respect you by that ?

I think not . Did you respect me , even with our disagree  about this subject or not  ?  That’s the point , the real point :
Respect!


cheers
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 21, 2019, 04:19:42 PM
I am crushed, absolutely crushed, to hear that Rick doesn't think we watch his videos. While he freely admits that he doesn't have time to watch ours! 

 :'(
What people say and what they do are two different things i find, but not with me.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 04:21:46 PM
What false claims are you refering?
Where you  read my false claims ?
You are just a poor personality person, Thays choose be a Bully since i met you on this fórum.
Tem vergonha ! Have shame!
You cannot refute me, so you attack me personally. That is typical of the false claimant.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 04:25:32 PM
Hi Void ,we disagree , and it is true . And só what ? Should i stop respect you by that ?

I think not . Did you respect me , even with our disagree  about this subject or not  ?  That’s the point , the real point :
Respect!


cheers
You know, that last thing of yours that I built and tested turned out to be a pretty good receiver of wireless power. I don't think that's a coincidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so5OY5OBoJU
But is it OU?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 04:29:44 PM
AG  quite true you make posts like you just did to hoppy all the time here  "PSSSST have a look at this,but its not for here "  or make insinuations of knowledge not revealed ..Secrets .....and that is the problem with Ricks unwillingness to help here,and people here see one of the better builders at the forum struggle with the language
and understanding..and instead ,he just criticizes itsu for his handicap..or inability tocomprehend.
to much PSSSST here...

members here read that and suspect that your are indeed consistent.
EDiIT I see you added itsu to the quote and now in bold

HOPPY and ITSU I HAVE SOME THING THAT MIGHT HELP YOU BUT IT'S NOT FOR EVERYONE'S EYES.
can i send it to you ?
Nelson..respect has a place in knitting forums ..baking..or maybe poem writing venues as perhaps an excuse to with hold content...when peoples lives depend on the topic coming thru loud .. clear ..and spot on..?
PLEASE...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 04:29:57 PM
Hi Void ,we disagree , and it is true . And só what ? Should i stop respect you by that ?

I think not . Did you respect me , even with our disagree  about this subject or not  ?  That’s the point , the real point :
Respect!


cheers

Hi Nelson, I give respect where I think it is deserved, but not when people show them self to be dishonest (Rick). Sorry.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 04:35:07 PM
Enough about Rick already. :)

What do you guys think about the video of the device by Joel Cas Raras which I posted a few
comments back? I guess there is no way to judge it from just a video, but a couple of people
commented that Joel Cas Raras gave them a demo, so it looks like he may give people in person
demos if they ask him. I never travel to the Philippines however, so that won't fit into my schedule. ;)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 04:38:36 PM
we have open source friends here from the Philippines
not a problem to contact them .maybe start a topic ?
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 21, 2019, 04:45:52 PM
   Respect has to works both ways, and most all of us here do respect Rick, but he does not in any way respect us. Calling most all of us trolls and liers. So it is he, that is being disrespectful. And will not cooperate with us. And continues to throw out insults, with every post that he makes. This is the person that we should respect? Well I did, until I didn't.
   This thread is not going anywhere because of this lack of information, and the lack respect.

   Void:  I do appreciate your showing how it's very possible that there is no OU, in Rick's picture showing several bulbs being lit.Unless Rick make a new video showing us some new results, other than that iffy picture. I will wait and see. But, in any case, lighting some bulbs with no actual output readings is not what we need. Nor a KIT that does not produce OU.
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 04:46:54 PM
we have open source friends here from the Philippines
not a problem to contact them .maybe start a topic ?

Hi ramset. Apparently Joel Cas Raras is not 'open source', but he may possibly give an in person
demo to someone if they are in his area and contact him through his Facebook page.
Hopefully he would allow people to inspect carefully around the device to look for any possible hidden wires
powering the loads. If he doesn't allow people to inspect for hidden wires outside the device, then the device is fake. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 21, 2019, 04:47:06 PM
Hi Nelson, I give respect where I think it is deserved, but not when people show them self to be dishonest (Rick). Sorry.

Howww ... only because you feel that Rick is dishonest , you should stop respect  him ?
Our second disagree today ... but well , is just you way of see the things, and not mine .

cheers



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 21, 2019, 05:00:00 PM
You know, that last thing of yours that I built and tested turned out to be a pretty good receiver of wireless power. I don't think that's a coincidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so5OY5OBoJU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so5OY5OBoJU)
But is it OU?
Your build is impressive. So what is your conclusion??
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 21, 2019, 05:01:25 PM
You know, that last thing of yours that I built and tested turned out to be a pretty good receiver of wireless power. I don't think that's a coincidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so5OY5OBoJU
But is it OU?

Did you enjoy make that "copy" of my circuit or not ? Did you find OU ?





 but wait a minute  ..... is really a copy of my original circuit, the same mini radiant exciter  that i send to my friend Jeff Dove Jeff in USA  ??

Is possible that you mistake something when you copy the circuit ? who knows ?




 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 05:06:08 PM
Your build is impressive. So what is your conclusion??
1) That the power _transmitter_ is more important than the receiver.

2) That one must be careful when constructing things that act like power _receivers_ so that one knows just from where the power is really coming.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 05:07:32 PM
Here are a few more demos of the same 'self sustaining'  pulse motor device by Joel Cas Raras:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBrI3rM4Qs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pNOQUmI5W0

and an earlier video posted to a Facebook account:
https://www.facebook.com/madrigalrom/videos/10215575355043773/?t=0

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 21, 2019, 05:11:36 PM
Here are a few more demos of the same 'self sustaining'  pulse motor device by Joel Cas Raras:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBrI3rM4Qs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBrI3rM4Qs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pNOQUmI5W0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pNOQUmI5W0)

and an earlier video posted to a Facebook account:
https://www.facebook.com/madrigalrom/videos/10215575355043773/?t=0 (https://www.facebook.com/madrigalrom/videos/10215575355043773/?t=0)


Looks exactly like one of Rick's  builds except the guy looped it . A comment from Rick would be useful....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 05:14:10 PM
Did you enjoy make that "copy" of my circuit or not ? Did you find OU ?





 but wait a minute  ..... is really a copy of my original circuit, the same mini radiant exciter  that i send to my friend Jeff Dove Jeff in USA  ??

Is possible that you mistake something when you copy the circuit ? who knows ?




 
Is it possible that YOU made an error in your schematic that I copied and that appears in the video? Is what you sent to Jeff Dove really this circuit? How can we be sure? Did you also send him the power _transmitter_ that nobody wants to talk about?

Is it possible that _this_ is really a mini radiant exciter?:



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 05:17:35 PM
Maybe Mark Dansie is close enough to pay a visit. But these days he seems to be more interested in serious investigations with real possibilities, rather than this kind of thing.

Hi ramset. Apparently Joel Cas Raras is not 'open source', but he may possibly give an in person
demo to someone if they are in his area and contact him through his Facebook page.
Hopefully he would allow people to inspect carefully around the device to look for any possible hidden wires
powering the loads. If he doesn't allow people to inspect for hidden wires outside the device, then the device is fake. :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 05:20:46 PM
we have open source friends here from the Philippines
not a problem to contact them .maybe start a topic ?
Chet, check your email! I've sent you something for Itsu. (I don't have his email address and can't attach anything to PMs here.)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 21, 2019, 05:26:03 PM
AG  quite true you make posts like you just did to hoppy all the time here  "PSSSST have a look at this,but its not for here "  or make insinuations of knowledge not revealed ..Secrets .....and that is the problem with Ricks unwillingness to help here,and people here see one of the better builders at the forum struggle with the language
and understanding..and instead ,he just criticizes itsu for his handicap..or inability tocomprehend.
to much PSSSST here...

members here read that and suspect that your are indeed consistent.
EDiIT I see you added itsu to the quote and now in bold

HOPPY and ITSU I HAVE SOME THING THAT MIGHT HELP YOU BUT IT'S NOT FOR EVERYONE'S EYES.
can i send it to you ?
Nelson..respect has a place in knitting forums ..baking..or maybe poem writing venues as perhaps an excuse to with hold content...when peoples lives depend on the topic coming thru loud .. clear ..and spot on..?
PLEASE...
Well... OK, I'll just post that little diagram here then and hope Itsu sees it. But we know which forum has the most Private Threads, which is exactly why I left.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 21, 2019, 05:27:03 PM
Is it possible that YOU made an error in your schematic that I copied and that appears in the video? Is what you sent to Jeff Dove really this circuit? How can we be sure? Did you also send him the power _transmitter_ that nobody wants to talk about?

Is it possible that _this_ is really a mini radiant exciter?:


1-Is it possible that YOU made an error in your schematic that I copied and that appears in the video?
 It could happen .. or even you not full understand the prupose of the circuit .

2- Is what you sent to Jeff Dove really this circuit? How can we be sure?
 Yes i send him the original.  You only need to ask him and you will hear their answer

3-Did you also send him the power _transmitter_ that nobody wants to talk about?
No , i did not send because simple not exist . You should not need to send , but receive that is the goal .

4-Is it possible that _this_ is really a mini radiant exciter?:

No just a kacher circuit or some type of variant

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 05:31:05 PM
Maybe Mark Dansie is close enough to pay a visit. But these days he seems to be more interested in serious investigations with real possibilities, rather than this kind of thing.

Well, if he allows people to come and view a demo in person (as he apparently already has) and inspect for
any hidden wires around it, and if it can run a kW of loads for say 8 hours with no issue, then I would say
that would be a good test. Until something like that is done, I would say it might be jumping the gun to completely dismiss it.  :D

P.S. Based on a comment I read, it looks like a familiar situation here where Joel Cas Raras says he doesn't have a patent
and that it works on a simple principle, and he wants investors, but is afraid that once the secret
of how it works is out he will will be shunted aside, so he is very reluctant to make a deal with anyone. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 21, 2019, 05:37:50 PM
   TK:   I've sent you a PM, please check it.
   Itsu is not part of our forum members here now. But, seams to still be able to post PMs here. Although of that, I'm not too sure.
   NickZ
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 21, 2019, 05:52:38 PM

1-Is it possible that YOU made an error in your schematic that I copied and that appears in the video?
 It could happen .. or even you not full understand the prupose of the circuit .

2- Is what you sent to Jeff Dove really this circuit? How can we be sure?
 Yes i send him the original.  You only need to ask him and you will hear their answer

3-Did you also send him the power _transmitter_ that nobody wants to talk about?
No , i did not send because simple not exist . You should not need to send , but receive that is the goal .

4-Is it possible that _this_ is really a mini radiant exciter?:

No just a kacher circuit or some type of variant

   
   Nelson:  Can you please explain (again), the difference between your circuit, and a simple Exciter/Kacher circuit?
   I am still very interested in your circuit(s), if that particular circuit can self run, or produce OU.   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 21, 2019, 06:50:31 PM
Rick reinvented radio station. Which he presented here.
Maybe he has something, but that part he will never diaclose.
He wants everyone to follow him without question.
God complex! To beg him for something we never saw.
I saw his car, but not runing, just parked while he made long speech about it.
Probably is same with the boat.

He promised video in which he will help step by step how to achieve results he claims.
That video never showed up.

I dont know for the others, but this story becomes hollow and Harry Potter like.

Ocam's Razor:
If Rick has something, he will not be here teachong for free.
His gadgets are not free and I can say little bit expensive.
If he really has a boat runing for three years, power companies and oil giants would depart him from this world long time ago.
With his statements he is running with the flag, begging powers on top to crash him, melt him and make him dissapear into the night.
But nobody is touching him because he is not danger for them.
They know how much he has.
So, everyone can conclude what is going here.

Stop begging and make your own circuits and devices which can be better than his claims.

This forum lost few good members because this.
It doesnt have to be like this!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 06:56:31 PM
Void..I see Tinsels recommendation above ..on Mark D I just checked distance from Dansies posted business to your fellow in San Pedro
seems within 50 miles or so ??
will call Dansie tomorrow and let him know
I must add ...these guys with serious claims who are not open sourcing ..they Make Mark sign contacts that would keep him and his family broke for generations if he revealed the results ...
suffice to say ..usually the scammers won't allow him to test once they realize the extent he goes to.
and that info [a denial to allow a no cost to the inventor investigation would be enuff for a better understanding of this fellows  claims ,to be clear we are talking black box no secrets revealed demonstrations..where secrets are not even revealed to the investigators.
I must add ..he told me in the 100 or more investigations he has done...
not one  ...........

but he did mention years ago [prior to this call I made to him about IEC a few weeks ago] an ambient harvester he was invited to see ... that had given him pause it had serious limitations and  low wattage collection [30 watts ??]

??
also a note about a person who I will not write his name here anymore [or wants others mentioning here] ...use PM here for correspondence ...membership in full operation.and circuit viewed from this topic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see Tinsel posted a reason which I was unaware of...for leaving Peter's forum
I had thought an issue with the IEC topic and lawyers or lawsuit concerns on Peters forum as the reason    To clarify its Not really allowed at that venue since Bedini came there and threatened Peter with lawsuit 
 the  bedini name was not allowed to be written after that..and great care taken to not subject the host to such REAL THREATS ever again.America has way too many Lawyers looking for money...Peter runs his forum on his dime no advertisingand works unbelievable hours to make ends meet.and yes that is absolutely one reason that not every topic or investigation is on a public thread ..Liability to the host.but to insinuate that the forum keeps secrets from the open source community.. would be a kick in the groin for Peter and all that toil there .The rule is you don't work in Peter's house with out an open source Plan for that work. end of story

My comment to AG was one of a behavior that he does from time to time not realizing how it looks to readers !
he intimates a higher knowledge and makes no effort to explain.[why members here Take issue with Rick..]
happens quite a bit ??
I regret writing that now ,but at the same time happy for TK response and clarity ...
 
















Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 21, 2019, 07:03:23 PM
   
   Nelson:  Can you please explain (again), the difference between your circuit, and a simple Exciter/Kacher circuit?
   I am still very interested in your circuit(s), if that particular circuit can self run, or produce OU.

Hi Nick, I hope you're well.
I respect you Nick but i will not make the mistake once made in the past, fueling controversy, and I unlike some people i
 do not need to be the center of attention .
That circuit is part of something bigger , where i invest 2 years of my time study him but is only a model of study not scaled .
On this old video you could see 1 test with on of "radiant" module tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is9fOtBeo_I

More scaled up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGdKqdpztuY            look to the glass of water on the top of flat pancake coil

Wish you all the best





Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 21, 2019, 07:15:58 PM
Chet: quote from Wesley.


Dr Hans is good man, but he has temptations and  moods.[/size]and I respect thatAs far as me. : I DON"T CARE..That is one of the reasons I didn't publish yet  book  for housewives   how to  put together   shelf from IKEA and how to  build FE  device  based   on  Schumann waveguide.Wesley
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 07:55:15 PM
Wesley has great zeal and passion for this path he investigates I have absolutely Zero knowledge beyond his postings at this forum.
I had read a while back in his note book he was looking for or wondering why persons were not experimenting with this/his technology ?
very recently there have been discussions towards remedying this drought?
maybe he will open a separate page in his section if this happens ?
that is to say persons with the skill set and equipment and history of sharing
here or elsewhere !
show interest..................would not surprise me if Wesley even offered to loan some things towards this goal [he is that kind of guy !!
??nothing ventured nothing gained........??






 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 21, 2019, 08:28:00 PM
Hi Ramset. If Joel agrees to do a demo (he apparently has previously), then it doesn't have to
be too over the top. If the person going there is too demanding or intimidating, he might not agree to a demo. :)
For a first visit, a person viewing just needs to:
1) Be able to make sure there are no hidden mains wires being used to power the loads by checking carefully around the device
    and loads for possible hidden wires.
2) Make sure there is no large battery inside powering an inverter. Can do this by powering
    a load of about 1kW for several hours continuously.
Keep it friendly and easy going and he may agree to do the demo.
If someone approaches him with all sorts of over the top demands, then he may well not agree. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 21, 2019, 09:03:50 PM
T,
Face it, you accused me of not reading your post in my reply, but I did and you actually didn't in the very reply. Just like Void. Now you look even worse for shifting your rebuke. You specifically described Void's meters I showed exploded, so you mocked him while trying to mock me. You have no credibility here, and you are not providing any valuable content. Only being a bully as one just pointed out.  :-\

I am not relying on a panel meters for my claims T. I do use all the meters available, and also the ultimate KW meter that is on the side of your house as I show at my meetings. My claims are about what is happening in the real world.

It is obvious that you DO CARE what I say, otherwise you would not go to such lengths to make a fool of yourself. You are desperate to do this at any cost apparently.

I didn't demonstrate anything on this forum but my claims about truths you all have proved to and in yourselves now. It is you who have all proved the only claims I intended to prove through the internet. I proved that: It is foolish to assume you can prove or disprove OU through video, pictures or words over the Internet. I proved that people like you contradict themselves and purposely try and suppress what I have been sharing. The intense energy fired up about a mere information exchange proves to everyone that the mocking words are not actually sincere and that there is a manifest agenda here. The amount of traffic alone that has come to this thread since I joined it last month is very telling that the information is valuable. You and several others speak as if it is not, but the volume and fallacy of your responses prove to everyone otherwise.

Just imagine what that energy could do if you sincerely wanted to do good with it. So far I have proven several fundamental things to these two forums, what have you proven? Seems nobody wanted to even consider that you can't prove or disprove OU over the Internet. Now that seems self-evident, but why have all of you and tens of thousands of people not considered that all these years? So much wasted energy as some of you have admitted. I think that what I did in that respect is very significant even if you disagree with everything else. But no, you are bent on attack. And you don't want to grant that because it exposes your game and great fallacy. I have brought the actual purpose of these forums back to your faces and rebuked the folly of trying to make this and all forums into some heresy hunting inquisition. And I have repeatedly stated that we have to start with a proper foundation or there can be no progress. But you and others keep denying that foundation and beg the question by expecting proof over the internet directly or implied. You are all bent out of shape over it. I take a picture outside of a racoon up a tree and post it on a forum. Any you jump up an down saying it doesn't prove it is a raccoon because you think it is a cat. You mock me because you assume there are no raccoons in this area, and besides that I didn't have the proper lens on my camera to prove it to you! But I never intended to prove to you that it was a racoon with a picture or over the internet. I merely shared something with a picture to strangers because I thought they may be interested. Now I could share that actual picture but somehow I don't think I would get the same response.

You're the one relying on the PSU panel meters for your claims Rick, we've all seen you do it. Void is simply illustrating how they work and how imprecise they can be.    :o
And I don't care what you say... I care what you DEMONSTRATE, and your PHOTO to which I referred in my comment DEMONSTRATES a bunch of coils without visible loads and a few measly LEDs lit to a dim glow, with sufficient power INPUT to your system fully to account what you DEMONSTRATE. It also DEMONSTRATES that you have a lot more coils and LEDs that you want people to think you "could" have connected.

If that's your OU.... you are being laughed at, by a lot more people than just me. You are being laughed at by the real builders and experimenters on at least two forums.  I can put a bucket out in my yard and catch water from my sprinkler system. The bucket fills up, and I can even put a dozen more buckets out there and they will all fill up, and without putting any additional load on my sprinklers.  That is all you are doing with your "OU".

Demonstrate the validity of your claims. Or admit that you cannot. Think about what Chet has told you, and search deeply within your soul, and ask yourself.... "Is that right?"
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 09:15:33 PM
VOID ..RE : fellow in the Philippines
quote Hi Ramset. If Joel agrees to do a demo (he apparently has previously), then it doesn't have to
be too over the top. If the person going there is too demanding or intimidating, he might not agree to a demo. (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif))
For a first visit, a person viewing just needs to:
1) Be able to make sure there are no hidden mains wires being used to power the loads by checking carefully around the device
    and loads for possible hidden wires.
2) Make sure there is no large battery inside powering an inverter. Can do this by powering
    a load of about 1kW for several hours continuously.
Keep it friendly and easy going and he may agree to do the demo.
If someone approaches him with all sorts of over the top demands, then he may well not agree. end quote


Void...He is seeking investors ....? all I know about that is what I have read in these forums over years and years..and the ratio of truth to scam ...there is no ratio from where I sit ..referring to persons soliciting investors in similar presentations on you tube.

so its buyer beware ... and having spent a lifetime in the melting pot of NYC where a "NY minute" usually determines how fast a sucker gets separated from his money ....yeesh..

Here some fellows behind the old iron curtain ran scams which still creep me out.[reminded me of my life experiences with certain elements in NYC..
But the Philippines seems changed or changing ..over here the impression that a scam would be tolerated  ??I don't know ...

and then the fact that the People there would benefit tremendously from such technology


Mark Dansie has one speed,and could teach classes on what to do in these cases.

 There is another fellow who might be able to visit or contact him...would take many more calls to make that happen

And  I have to be honest ...I have little time for these things these days.maybe some other fellows here can carry some water or know some persons in the Philippines to call.
EDIT
Especially since A King seems to have put a Wesley Build/attempt on the page? Wesley is here on this forum and seems interested in teaching and definitely shares components and equipment to this group of builders.

Viva la Viziv...?[spelled it right that time I think ??


 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: steeltpu on July 21, 2019, 09:37:52 PM
rick friedrich rules (also known as Ferengi rules of acquisition):



1 Once you have their money... you never give it back.
2   The best deal is the one that brings the most profit.   The 34th Rule
2   Money is everything.
3      Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to.
5   Always exaggerate your estimates.   
8   Small print leads to large risk.   
9   Opportunity plus instinct equals profit.
10   Greed is eternal.   
13   Anything worth doing is worth doing for money.
14   Sometimes the quickest way to find profits is to let them find you.
15   Dead men close no deals.   
16   A deal is a deal... until a better one comes along.
17   A contract is a contract is a contract... but only between Ferengi   
18   A Rick Ferengi without profit is no Ferengi at all.
19   Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
20   He who dives under the table today lives to profit tomorrow.   Ferenginar: Satisfaction is Not Guaranteed
21   Never place friendship above profit.
22   A wise man can hear profit in the wind.
23   Nothing is more important than your health... except for your money.   
27   There's nothing more dangerous than an honest businessman.
29   What's in it for me?
30   Confidentiality equals profit.
39   Don't tell customers more than they need to know.   
43   Feed your greed, but not enough to choke it.   
55   Take joy from profit, and profit from joy.
57   Good customers are as rare as latinum—treasure them.
60   Keep your lies consistent.   



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 21, 2019, 10:05:28 PM

I am not relying on a panel meters for my claims T. I do use all the meters available, and also the ultimate KW meter that is on the side of your house as I show at my meetings. My claims are about what is happening in the real world.

Rick,
C'mon man this is a futile endless loop of accusations /counter accusations. You have been told not to waste peoples time with long sermons claiming OU, that you are not willing to support with at least a modicum of meaningful data. You are giving as good as you get in terms of ridicule, its a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'. Folk are naturally going to react if they are preached to by anyone trying to lord over a forum thread.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 21, 2019, 11:00:02 PM
I been reading this thread.
But, I can not find OU schematics from Mr. Rick, all talking about.

I will be glad if somebody can point me where is it?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 21, 2019, 11:18:07 PM
AG  quite true you make posts like you just did to hoppy all the time here  "PSSSST have a look at this,but its not for here "  or make insinuations of knowledge not revealed ..Secrets .....and that is the problem with Ricks unwillingness to help here,and people here see one of the better builders at the forum struggle with the language
and understanding..and instead ,he just criticizes itsu for his handicap..or inability tocomprehend.
to much PSSSST here...

members here read that and suspect that your are indeed consistent.
EDiIT I see you added itsu to the quote and now in bold

HOPPY and ITSU I HAVE SOME THING THAT MIGHT HELP YOU BUT IT'S NOT FOR EVERYONE'S EYES.
can i send it to you ?
Nelson..respect has a place in knitting forums ..baking..or maybe poem writing venues as perhaps an excuse to with hold content...when peoples lives depend on the topic coming thru loud .. clear ..and spot on..?
PLEASE...
If you told me a secret would you like it if i published it when you told me not to ?
no of course you wouldn't any way Rick knows what I know  ! so your worries are unfounded.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 21, 2019, 11:32:32 PM
 AG
 No worries ,I am on the road but wanted to leave this message for Tinsel
 A note to TInsel
Somebody dropped off a bouquet of flowers and a cheeseburger here ..and before you ask no I don’t know who bit the cheeseburger ( thought it might be Nick Z but I’m not saying )
The note says

something about ...thank you for the auto resonance circuit ...it worked like a champ
I couldn’t make out the video channel
But will try to ask tomorrow


.............
Edit for void below
Thanks for sharing the vids
Here members who lived close use to offer more
Help with such things

But after years of bad results
Not so much anymore...
I like to think someone here will
Try
If not I will
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 22, 2019, 12:01:03 AM
Hoppy,
Not true, I have answered the questions, but most refuse to answer what I have asked. I have shown that the accusations are self-contradictory, and the underlying assumption of expecting to prove OU over the internet is fundamental lunacy. If I was wasting people's time then they would not keep asking the questions Hoppy. If this was a waste of time then there would be 115000+ views here. I have never done what most have done towards me. I don't make up stuff or twist things or make demands for people to prove the impossible (like over the internet). It is several of you that are lording over me and others in this. Making such demands while not expecting to do the same themselves. Again, Hoppy, is this a place for information sharing or something more? Why all the fuss? Why single me out when no one pretends to prove anything here? I have told you where you can find proof, but it is not possible online. That should be a 'reality' check. Now I don't see anyone among the people who are playing the games holding any of their own accountable. But you want to point the finger at me for some reason.

Rick,
C'mon man this is a futile endless loop of accusations /counter accusations. You have been told not to waste peoples time with long sermons claiming OU, that you are not willing to support with at least a modicum of meaningful data. You are giving as good as you get in terms of ridicule, its a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'. Folk are naturally going to react if they are preached to by anyone trying to lord over a forum thread.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 22, 2019, 12:05:04 AM
Ramset, if you feel that way then don't waste your time.
I only posted some video links and mentioned a few comments people have made.
I don't know what the exact situation is there.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 22, 2019, 01:03:03 AM

Rick,

I quote some text from your recent posts to me, first from #1361
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537001/#msg537001 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537001/#msg537001)

Quote
"If I have any radiation detector I can see what the inductor radiates in and out of resonance. In fact the difference of input is minimal in or out of resonance, but the radiation is phenomenally different.

The input does not change substantially, or proportionately to the radiation and voltage between in and out of resonance. This is a nonconservative relationship, obviously. Now if I was ringing the bell instead of a forced oscillation then that would be even more obvious. But again, all we have to do is compare the input with the output and see what the difference is: Input is about the same in or out of resonance, yet output massively different. hmmm, about the differences between 9V and 1300V. There's that 144 times the difference, and is what we see in radiation difference.

You agree with the radiation difference, but you deliberately leave out the most obvious detail (which is implied by other things you say elsewhere) that the input does not correspondingly change to be 144 times different."


I quote from your next post #1362 https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537003/#msg537003 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537003/#msg537003) 

Quote
"Remember, I used the metered power supply to run either of these, and see how using the FG with the same power gives lower results, like producing 250V with 9V input. But when I add the gate driver I get 1300V with the same input approximately. This has a faster rate of change. I only say all this because these are the parts in the kits."

I qoute this from your post #1394 : 
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537131/#msg537131 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537131/#msg537131)
Quote
"You just assumed that the input would have to correspond to the output voltage and radiation. But it actually doesn't. There is substantially no input difference between running the tank with 9V out of resonance and with running in resonance. That has been my point all along."
Now I quote this from your post of #1395 https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537135/#msg537135 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537135/#msg537135) :

Quote
"The point is that if the frequency generator powered by the metered power supply draws substantially the same power as the gate driver, then we have a gain demonstrated because of the fact of the rate of change and not because of all your gymnastics."

The reason I list these quotes is to make it clear what you mean on input and output and eventually the "missing point".   8)

Lest I misunderstand the message from your above quotes, I summarize them like this:

you measured the DC input power of your frequency generator it consumed from your power supply and said this:
1) consumption (DC power draw) did not change significantly when you tuned the TX circuit in and out of resonance
2) this consumption was comparable to the DC consumption of the gate driver you also measured when this latter was driving the same TX circuit at resonance and this time 1300 Vpp appeared across the TX coil instead of say 250 Vpp the generator RF output produced earlier across the coil.

Here is my answer for these:

When you used the frequency generator to drive the series LC TX circuit, the 50 Ohm output impedance inherently limited the output current. This means that the maximum output current was defined by the generator output voltage amplitude, by the inherent 50 Ohm and by the series LC circuit resistance when the LC circuit was at resonance. And the output current from the generator went down the moment the TX circuit was out of resonance. This is because at resonance the series LC circuit has way less resistance than 50 Ohm and at off resonance the low resistance becomes an increasing reactance beyond the 50 Ohm value, so the overall loading of the generator output reduces.

I gave examples how all this changes with the varying load the series LC circuit represents in my reply #1130 to Nick.
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536505/#msg536505 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536505/#msg536505)
At resonance the TX circuit is almost a short circuit across the generator output (depending on its loaded Q), and at off resonance it behaves as a high impedance load drawing much less RF current from the output.

Now if you check the DC consumption of the frequency generator under these conditions, it should be known that its consumption consists of two circuits that has no much influence on each other:
1) it has its own relatively constant consumption for feeding the display and all the additional on-board circuitry
2) most of the measured change in consumption comes from the load change across the RF output due to the TX circuit as it is tuned to on and off resonance and how strongly or less strongly it shunts the 50 Ohm generator output resistance

So if you found as you wrote that there was no significant change in the input DC power draw of your generator at the on and off tuned cases, it was caused by the generator 50 Ohm internal resistance that ruined the original Q of the TX circuit and also limited the maximum RF output current possible to take out from the generator. This is why you measured only say 250 Vpp across the TX coil.
See a numerical example on this in my reply #1130 to Nick, how much actual output voltage amplitude remained as generator output voltage to feed the TX circuit, after the voltage division between the 50 Ohm and the resonant LC impedance develops.

In the case of the gate driver IC, it has a minimal, max a few mA DC current draw when its output pin is unloaded. And when you drive the same TX circuit by the gate driver it has only the 1 Ohm internal resistance instead of the 50 Ohm so the output RF current can be much higher due to the much better impedance match between the IC and the series LC circuit as I already also wrote. The impedance match goes together with the fact that a higher portion of the output RF voltage is available, this now manifests in the much higher RF voltage (1300 Vpp and higher) across the L or C components. In the frequency generator case a much smaller RF voltage remains for feeding the series LC circuit due to the voltage division between the 50 Ohm and the small LC circuit resistance at resonance.

Regarding the DC power consumption of the gate driver, it strongly depends on (quasi linearly) how the load increases or decreases across its output pin RF wise. You can easily check this by using some half watt rated metal film or carbon resistors with values like 4.7  10  22  33 and 50 Ohm values and hook them up (one at a time) in series with the TX circuit (insert them between say the TX coil and the IC output pin). And check how the RF voltage changes across the coil, how the initial kiloVolt amplitude goes down gradually as you insert the increasing resistor values one by one into the LC circuit.

Why I consider all this important? Because both you and a.king have often mentioned in your arguments the benefit of the gate driver that insures disruptive discharge with its fast switching capability hence energy gain is created in this way.

I hope what I wrote above clarifies there is no disruptive discharge and the high voltage manifests by the much better impedance match between the IC output and the resonant TX circuit (higher RF voltage and current will be available for driving the TX circuit) and this is why a stronger EM field is created around the TX coil.

You can check what RF voltage level remains directly across the output of your frequency generator when you hook up the TX circuit tuned to resonance and you can check what RF voltage level remains between the output pin and negative rail of the gate driver when you hook up the same TX circuit tuned also to the same resonance at the same RF frequency.

And what is even more important, this voltage gain (which is the ratio of the TX coil (or capacitor) voltage to the IC RF output voltage) is not energy gain. If you still claim this, I still disagree.  You can prove me wrong only one way and then I will readily acknowledge I was wrong.

Gyula 

PS  to all:  you need to log in for the links I included to match the reply # to the actual post,   
 For instance my first link should go to reply #1361 but if you do not log in, then the same post has reply #1364 
Such thing happens when a few posts get deleted from the threads and a software glitch or negligence does not renumber correctly the rest of the replies... 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 22, 2019, 02:49:09 AM
Gyulasun,
1. Rate of change gains.
Thank you for your long reply. I understand the point you are trying to make, and have long understood that for years. The problem is that I have many frequency generators, junk, cheap, OK, good, and also high quality. They give different speeds as you mentioned. Different square waves. And rate of change differences actually translate to the results apart from any differences between 50 Ohm impedance. Again, Tesla first taught on this in 1891. In my motors there was a dramatic difference in the output with and without the gate driver while the input power was the same with or without. For example, faster battery charging. Or other loads. With the kit, if I use different frequency generators I will get different levels of output depending on how square the wave is. While I understand there are different parts and different efficiencies between these various FGs it still indicates the same thing. Now it doesn't matter to me if it was merely an impedance issue as that is very important. But it is still an impedance issue in a different way. In the sense of the rate of change affects the output dramatically. Obviously a sinewave changes it for the worse. Also triangle wave.

2. Oscillatory Energy gains.
The point is that all this was a non sequitur from you. You diverted from the point at hand. I understand you wanted to specifically challenge that and that is fine, but the main point everyone wants to know is if the input and output are in a linear relationship as you claim. And the fact is that there is no substantial difference between the input in or out of resonance where there is substantial difference (real amplification) in the output. While college books don't like to draw attention to that, it is well known.

The same thing is seen with a piano. Go place a damper on the center C while you strike it. You will get little result for your effort. Now remove the damper and strike again. Now you will hear it once. This represents the regular closed loop electrical circuit. You pay once and get one return. Now strike and hold down the C key and it will continue to oscillate beyond the single sound. This is free energy in relation to electrical systems. Now hold down the sustain pedal and all the dampers are removed. The C key you hit will vibrate as before and then all the other strings in harmony will vibrate. The sound board also vibrates in all these situations. Now we have much energy gain. Now with pianos with the 4th harmonic pedal we hold that down and strike the C key and it hits once and is dampened while all the other dampers are removed. Guess what? They vibrate as if the C string was un dampened. Just like two tuning forks would. Now do all that with a room filled with such pianos where all the dampers are lifted and imagine the effect? But as Tesla said, that is all nothing to compare with electrical resonance.

Whether or not people know how to benefit from the radiation, the fact is that radiation output is in proportion to the measured voltage increase, and the input remains substantially the same. In the meeting I powered 15 3W bulbs at 1/2W brightness with around 75 other coils with smaller bulbs. The 3W bulbs were brand new very common bulbs that hundreds of vendors are selling. It takes 6V just to turn them on, and 7.4V 1/2W to get them to be the same brightness. Just two of these takes you over the 0.72W input. But the object was not to end with that, but to show that I could continue to add more and more coils. We only had 10 of the big coils so I started using 4 more smaller coils and one ferrite rod for the 5 other bigger bulbs. With fine tuning many more coils in layers all around, Don Smith is proved true in that you can actually get the amount of energy proportional to the radiation. Few situations would make such an arrangement suitable, when you could just have one properly made L2. But this was the second thing Don did in his progression so I ended up making the kit the first thing he did, and started to use it to give indications of the second thing (Model 2).

The rate of change gains is not a new idea by me. It is easy to see in the motors, with charging and discharging capacitors, and also with resonance tank circuits. It remains for everyone to see for themselves. Many have reported seeing that, and many have simply denied that it would make a difference according to their theories.

But I am not dismissing all the other factors that you bring up.

Rick,
When you used the frequency generator to drive the series LC TX circuit, the 50 Ohm output impedance inherently limited the output current. This means that the maximum output current was defined by the generator output voltage amplitude, by the inherent 50 Ohm and by the series LC circuit resistance when the LC circuit was at resonance. And the output current from the generator went down the moment the TX circuit was out of resonance. This is because at resonance the series LC circuit has way less resistance than 50 Ohm and at off resonance the low resistance becomes an increasing reactance beyond the 50 Ohm value, so the overall loading of the generator output reduces.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 22, 2019, 03:33:24 AM
Void  quote
 Ramset, if you feel that way then don't waste your time.
I only posted some video links and mentioned a few comments people have made.
I don't know what the exact situation is there.
end quote 
I apologize ,I have always lived by "no stone left unturned"  and you have been a diligent investigator here.I will make sure it gets handled the way you suggest.respectfully Chet K ps its stuck in bold type for some reason...not intentional
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 22, 2019, 04:08:10 AM
I apologize, I have always lived by "no stone left unturned"  and you have been a diligent investigator here.
I will make sure it gets handled the way you suggest.
respectfully Chet K
ps its stuck in bold type for some reason...not intentional

Hi Chet. No worries! It is OK, I have sent him a message. I'll PM you if I get a response back from him or not.
All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 22, 2019, 06:56:38 AM
...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 22, 2019, 06:58:32 AM
... Technical difficulties... Please do not adjust your set. :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on July 22, 2019, 07:29:59 AM
Rick,
C'mon man this is a futile endless loop of accusations /counter accusations. You have been told not to waste peoples time with long sermons claiming OU, that you are not willing to support with at least a modicum of meaningful data. You are giving as good as you get in terms of ridicule, its a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'. Folk are naturally going to react if they are preached to by anyone trying to lord over a forum thread.

.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 22, 2019, 12:16:15 PM
The fact is that no-one has disproved Rick's claims. When someone shows a video with 75 receiver coils looking just like Rick's video and says it's not ou then we have a challenge to his claim and no more.
At the moment the hard facts are that there are NO challenges that are credible to his claim.
  Get over it.
So from a pure science perspective the score is

RICK 1, NAYSAYERS  0

EE theory goes nowhere (so far)  in a claim situation like this. (Unless you embrace Rick's theory)



And in case you missed it -  Rick did not patent his claim.  He gave it to the world for FREE.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 22, 2019, 01:22:47 PM
And in case you missed it -  Rick did not patent his claim.  He gave it to the world for FREE.

King,

Dont get me wrong. Even after 100 pages I still dont know Rick's setup.
When he explain how he does it, then I can try to do the same and convince myself in the stuff you claim.

Otherwise it is Mobius loop of claims and no real try done.
You can speak and claim as much as you want, but if nobody can replicate it, what is the purpose of all of this talk?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 22, 2019, 02:34:46 PM
The fact is that no-one has disproved Rick's claims. When someone shows a video with 75 receiver coils looking just like Rick's video and says it's not ou then we have a challenge to his claim and no more.
At the moment the hard facts are that there are NO challenges that are credible to his claim.
  Get over it.
So from a pure science perspective the score is

RICK 1, NAYSAYERS  0

EE theory goes nowhere (so far)  in a claim situation like this. (Unless you embrace Rick's theory)



And in case you missed it -  Rick did not patent his claim.  He gave it to the world for FREE.

I  have got nothing against Mr.Friedrichs' claims,without to know what his claims really are  !
Instead 75 coils 75 and more bulbs


Reading : https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004100349A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004100349A1/en)

and  knowing that beside Volt and Ampere the European net-grid works with "stable" 50 Hz frequency.
Seriell resistors effect : frquency and/or duty cycle divider ? bulb filament actio/ reactio behaviour ?

Light elements are "physiological" indicators,without real output  measurements by appropriate instruments

related

"flickering" (1/10,1/100,1/1000 sec cam sequences ) and/or

lux/lumen and/or

heat units/ calori)

we do not know about the real output/input ratio.

Other example :

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5130608A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5130608A/en)
PRR : pulse repetition rate ( and our eyes reaction delay)

Before : 100 W lamp consume             with module : 4 Watt lamp + 8 Watt ( the modul consume)

                                                                                            lumen/Watt ? calori/Watt
A power saving device, not claimed : OU

We have to disclose ( and differ) physical and technical peak and average power consume ( with/-out feed back circuit)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 22, 2019, 03:20:45 PM
Rick,

Thanks for your answer of https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537327/#msg537327

For now I quote these from that post:
Quote

"In my motors there was a dramatic difference in the output with and without the gate driver while the input power was the same with or without."

"Now it doesn't matter to me if it was merely an impedance issue as that is very important. But it is still an impedance issue in a different way."


Yes, when you pulse coils at off resonance, then the rate of change does count i.e. how fast the coil current is interrupted and the magnetic field collapses. The higher the switching speed the higher the voltage spike amplitude that appears across the coil just after the current is switched off.  This is okay.

It is also okay that a gate driver can provide very fast switching speeds constantly and in a dependable way.

Please perform the following simple test for yourself,  it takes only a few minutes and you have the TX coil (around 150 uH) and the capacitor resonating the TX circuit around 1.2 MHz, at your disposal (I think). 

Drive it with the gate driver IC as usual and check the coil voltage with the HV scope probe, you will surely find some kV peak to peak sine wave amplitude, right?  Receiver coils nearby are not needed for this test. 

Now just insert a 50 Ohm non wire wound resistor in series with the output pin and drive the same series LC circuit in the same setup. In fact any resistor value between 47 and 56 Ohm would do or some series and / or parallel combos of some resistors to have the near 50 Ohm value.  Of course you can insert the resistor at the bottom end of the series LC circuit where it goes to the common negative rail of the IC, instead of directly in series with the IC output pin at the LC top end, it does not matter.

Now please explain why you find that the some kV amplitude the coil has had earlier now has gone down to a few tens to max a few hundred volt amplitude ? (to any value between say 50-300 Vpp, much depends mainly on the TX coil DC resistance) 

Nothing has changed in your setup but the Q quality factor (XL/R) value of the LC circuit,  the fast switching speed of the driver IC has remained the same,  resistive loads do not affect switching speed of such driver ICs at all (but capacitive or inductive loads do, their data sheet includes the specs). 

And if you use the metered DC power supply to feed the driver IC for the above test, you would nicely see how the DC power draw changes: maximum draw manifests without the series 50 Ohm (no receiver coils present) and a much lower power draw manifests when the 50 Ohm is inserted. 

Anybody can test this for himself, although a HV scope probe is not commonly possessed by most and without reducing the kV amplitude below the 300 Vpp level which is safe for most scope channel inputs, such tests are not recommended. A random search on a how to make a 100:1 scope probe is here but there are several other designs if you search, (on youtube there is even a 1000:1 probe design).   
https://how-to.fandom.com/wiki/How_to_make_a_100X_oscilloscope_probe 
For such test only a comparison is needed between a high and a relatively lower voltage amplitude, no need for lab precision. Safety rules when dealing with HV should strictly be adhered to of course.

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 22, 2019, 03:46:32 PM
The fact is that no-one has disproved Rick's claims. When someone shows a video with 75 receiver coils looking just like Rick's video and says it's not ou then we have a challenge to his claim and no more.
At the moment the hard facts are that there are NO challenges that are credible to his claim.
  Get over it.
So from a pure science perspective the score is
RICK 1, NAYSAYERS  0
EE theory goes nowhere (so far)  in a claim situation like this. (Unless you embrace Rick's theory)
And in case you missed it -  Rick did not patent his claim.  He gave it to the world for FREE.

A.king, It is of course not for others to 'disprove' various people's unsubstantiated claims. :)
It is for Rick, or anyone else, to actually demonstrate their own stated or implied claims in some sort of reasonable way,
if they want people to take them seriously. Instead what Rick does is back peddle and claim or imply that he never made
any such 'OU' claims, all the while implying that it is 'OU'. Do you really not see how underhanded that is? At any rate, I have
already showed that lighting LED lights fairly brightly only takes a relatively small amount of power, and what Rick demonstrated is
within what would be expected for that sort of input power level. There is no question about that.  Just because you
choose to blind yourself to such things, doesn't make them any less true.

Rick has not (so far) demonstrated anything that anyone with any degree of understanding of electronics
and physics would view as possibly 'OU'.  Sorry. All the trolling in the world is not going to change that.

A person actually has to demonstrate proper measurements in a reasonable way, or
show a self sustaining setup, again in some sort of reasonable way. Now if Rick ever shows a self sustaining
demonstration setup along the lines of what I posted a link to here previously, then I would say, OK, maybe there is something there. 
Maybe then it would be worth trying to replicate if all the exact details of the setup were posted here.

Cult mind is a scary thing. Beware of those who promise the moon but who only deliver rocks from the road.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 22, 2019, 04:32:23 PM
I  have got nothing against Mr.Friedrichs' claims,without to know what his claims really are  !
Instead 75 coils 75 and more bulbs


Reading : https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004100349A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004100349A1/en)

and  knowing that beside Volt and Ampere the European net-grid works with "stable" 50 Hz frequency.
Light elements are "physiological" indicators,without real output  measurements by appropriate instruments

related

"flickering" (1/10,1/100,1/1000 sec cam sequences ) and/or

lux/lumen and/or

heat units/ calori)

we do not know about the real output/input ratio.

Other example :

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5130608A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5130608A/en)
PRR : pulse repetition rate ( and our eyes reaction delay)

Before : 100 W lamp consume             with module : 4 Watt lamp + 8 Watt ( the modul consume)

                                                                                            lumen/Watt ? calori/Watt
A power saving device, not claimed : OU

We have to disclose ( and differ) physical and technical peak and average power consume ( with/-out feed back circuit)

The brain is saving (remember)  light?
Did Rick use FWB's as Itsu?

No I don't think so if this sudent follows his master;
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAxB-Dtl1U

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: steeltpu on July 22, 2019, 05:33:24 PM
The fact is that no-one has disproved Rick's claims. When someone shows a video with 75 receiver coils looking just like Rick's video and says it's not ou then we have a challenge to his claim and no more.
At the moment the hard facts are that there are NO challenges that are credible to his claim.
  Get over it.
So from a pure science perspective the score is

RICK 1, NAYSAYERS  0

EE theory goes nowhere (so far)  in a claim situation like this. (Unless you embrace Rick's theory)



And in case you missed it -  Rick did not patent his claim.  He gave it to the world for FREE.


WRONG!   


Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 22, 2019, 05:41:19 PM
So could this be overunity https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPDHyT78awYka_xNjim1NdFeJCUc1TVPPQNdzlBYuZnBEki6voHn1aSPSAc8GQzLg?key=NkJFbXcwZThYT1AxaHdNZC1GUDkzNGRoZ196cGVR
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 22, 2019, 05:47:12 PM
The brain is saving (remember)  light?
Did Rick use FWB's as Itsu?

No I don't think so if this sudent follows his master;
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAxB-Dtl1U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAxB-Dtl1U)

Arne
Hi Arne,

A.king21 wrote somewhere that Rick uses MR16 type LED bulbs, these are rated between 3 and 12 W or so and made for both 12 V DC and AC and as such they must have a diode bridge inside.

For those not considering that a LED is a diode I notice that when fed from AC voltage a single LED draws current during every second half wave of the AC periods, thus its drawn power from the AC source is much less than in a rectified AC voltage case, so the loaded Q of an LC tank that feeds such LEDs as the attached picture shows may remain relatively high. Also, there is not current draw from the AC source whenever the instanteneous AC voltage amplitude is under a certain threshold level below the forward voltage. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 22, 2019, 06:01:25 PM
Hi Arne,

A.king21 wrote somewhere that Rick uses MR16 type LED bulbs, these are rated between 3 and 12 W or so and made for both 12 V DC and AC and as such they must have a diode bridge inside.

For those not considering that a LED is a diode I notice that when fed from AC voltage a single LED draws current during every second half wave of the AC periods, thus its drawn power from the AC source is much less than in a rectified AC voltage case, so the loaded Q of an LC tank that feeds such LEDs as the attached picture shows may remain relatively high. Also, there is not current draw from the AC source whenever the instanteneous AC voltage amplitude is under a certain threshold level below the forward voltage. 

Gyula
Correct, so you have to take into account the further losses incurred by passing the current through the bridge rectifier.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 22, 2019, 06:10:13 PM
I  have got nothing against Mr.Friedrichs' claims,without to know what his claims really are  !
Instead 75 coils 75 and more bulbs


Reading : https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004100349A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004100349A1/en)

and  knowing that beside Volt and Ampere the European net-grid works with "stable" 50 Hz frequency.
Seriell resistors effect : frquency and/or duty cycle divider ? bulb filament actio/ reactio behaviour ?

Light elements are "physiological" indicators,without real output  measurements by appropriate instruments

related

"flickering" (1/10,1/100,1/1000 sec cam sequences ) and/or

lux/lumen and/or

heat units/ calori)

we do not know about the real output/input ratio.

Other example :

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5130608A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5130608A/en)
PRR : pulse repetition rate ( and our eyes reaction delay)

Before : 100 W lamp consume             with module : 4 Watt lamp + 8 Watt ( the modul consume)

                                                                                            lumen/Watt ? calori/Watt
A power saving device, not claimed : OU

We have to disclose ( and differ) physical and technical peak and average power consume ( with/-out feed back circuit)
Exactly !! And this must be done in a clear manner, repeatable by anyone "familiar with the art".


Data, data data. Does a claim of overunity or enhanced efficiency involve the brightness and power consumption of some kind of light source? Then at the very least some kind of calibration should be presented. Like this one, which is for a small Grain-Of-Wheat incandescent bulb. The principle is the same for whatever kind of light source load one may care to use. Measurements that are repeatable by anyone, data that is solid and not the result of a single anecdotal trial. Are you using LEDs for your load? Then a graph similar to this one should be obtained for that load, so that one knows what to expect in the straight DC or "normally powered" condition.
Can Rick present such a graph, or similar, for his LED loads? Does anyone think that such comparison data is _not_ required, when testing an OU claim that involves light output?

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 22, 2019, 06:29:27 PM
To those of you new to this; the claim is: At resonance there is a gain and this gain is realised through magnetic resonance. Each receiver coil also creates it's own magnetic field and re-transmits the signal. The procedure occurs because of magnetic resonance. You can also place further coils above and below the current picture.  I believe Rick claims that each mr16 light consumes approximately 1/2 watt although I am not sure if that relates to this picture.  I find the opposing vitriol unbelievable to be quite frank. This was not the case in the past when people simply accepted a claim and tried to verify it in their own way.
Also the rudeness to an inventor is only going to put other inventors off.  That's why some do not do videos.  So we all lose in the end.  Think about it.
Would you post a claim here after seeing the vitriol against an inventor ie Rick? The kit is called the Resonance Induction Coupler Kit.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 22, 2019, 06:30:59 PM
Correct, so you have to take into account the further losses incurred by passing the current through the bridge rectifier.

Oh yes, a handful of milliwatts here and there is going to make all the difference in the world. ;)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 22, 2019, 06:40:36 PM
In view of Brad's (TinMan, who started the threads on both forums) apology today, and the fact that the debates have really come to an end (the only thing happening now is people embarrassing themselves and heaping insults), I wrote the below response on Overunityresearch.com. I'm sure the principles will be debated, and that is what I am hoping for. After all, that is what science is about. The true principles will be clarified, illustrated, demonstrated and developed over centuries to come. It will never be perfect or finished. Hopefully this will mark a change in the free energy community from the impulsive blind mad rush for some free energy mystery circuit quest to the principled approach in having an informed foundation so that endless varieties of parts can be used to experience practical results.

"All right.
So at this point I'm just going to continue with the new website that will attempt to present the principles of free energy in the context of people proving or disproving such to themselves. The heated exchange on these forums has been useful to bring out the points that need to be focused on. But it does not give the ability to systematically develop and address very much. Principles need to be the focus, not individuals.
I may linger around here to see if you guys progress anywhere in your attempts here, but I think I'll let the new website take it from here.
I appreciate the invitation to come here, and I'll take everything shared into consideration.
I really wish you all the very best.
Rick"
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 22, 2019, 06:40:38 PM
To those of you new to this; the claim is: At resonance there is a gain and this gain is realised through magnetic resonance. Each receiver coil also creates it's own magnetic field and re-transmits the signal. The procedure occurs because of magnetic resonance. You can also place further coils above and below the current picture.  I believe Rick claims that each mr16 light consumes approximately 1/2 watt although I am not sure if that relates to this picture.  I find the opposing vitriol unbelievable to be quite frank. This was not the case in the past when people simply accepted a claim and tried to verify it in their own way.
Also the rudeness to an inventor is only going to put other inventors off.  That's why some do not do videos.  So we all lose in the end.  Think about it.
Would you post a claim here after seeing the vitriol against an inventor ie Rick? The kit is called the Resonance Induction Coupler Kit.

Hi a.king. Don smith presented such a general arrangement way back in the 90's.
If there is an 'inventor', it is Don Smith. ;) I am not aware of anyone ever demonstrating OU from such an
arrangement. Unfortunately what Rick is showing in that picture appears to be within an expected normal
performance range for the stated input power, as has already been pointed out a few times now.

Instead of piling up more and more words, perhaps you would care to show some actual proper power
measurements of your own setup so we can have a look? Surely you must have reproduced this and made proper
measurements to claim that you think something unusual is going on...
This is not energetic forum where proper measurements are greatly feared and considered taboo.

If someone can show some proper measurements or a self-looped setup which points towards
possibly something unusual going on, then great. Let's have a look! So far I haven't seen it.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 22, 2019, 06:53:31 PM

Also the rudeness to an inventor is only going to put other inventors off.  That's why some do not do videos.  So we all lose in the end.  Think about it.
Would you post a claim here after seeing the vitriol against an inventor ie Rick?
So, what about the rudeness being both given and returned by the inventor! We only lose when we accept claims without reasonable proof. Its called blind faith. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbYmdY8z8vg
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 22, 2019, 07:54:36 PM
So is this overunity ? I think Nelson wants people to view it but you have to guess the rest, good isn't it ?


https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMlSxShaDEE96_4ZzKPhw4mxsnEPe6x2X6S8fVuR7psCwgsRYUhPrILZMIthoLm2w?key=ejNzalBqdzR2WF94dlp5c2hqbEg2MjhkN1U5bF9B
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 22, 2019, 08:30:36 PM
So is this overunity ?


https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMlSxShaDEE96_4ZzKPhw4mxsnEPe6x2X6S8fVuR7psCwgsRYUhPrILZMIthoLm2w?key=ejNzalBqdzR2WF94dlp5c2hqbEg2MjhkN1U5bF9B (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMlSxShaDEE96_4ZzKPhw4mxsnEPe6x2X6S8fVuR7psCwgsRYUhPrILZMIthoLm2w?key=ejNzalBqdzR2WF94dlp5c2hqbEg2MjhkN1U5bF9B)
What, can't you tell?


What about this, is this overunity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLsOCYPCvGc
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2019, 09:02:29 PM
I have put now a few more members on moderation as they have been attacking Rick.
This way I can better see, who posts what and if these are slander or defamation postings with notechnical analysis, I will not let it get through and will be deleted...

Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: DavidWolff on July 22, 2019, 10:10:24 PM
What, can't you tell?


What about this, is this overunity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLsOCYPCvGc
Yes that is interesting, there is the other type too where you touch it and the LEDs or bulb goes brighter.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on July 22, 2019, 11:52:37 PM
I have put now a few more members on moderation as they have been attacking Rick.
This way I can better see, who posts what and if these are slander or defamation postings with notechnical analysis, I will not let it get through and will be deleted...

Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)

This is a letter of protest, and although one man's opinion, I know that it is shared by many.

 Stefan do you realize what you are doing? You have gagged two of the very brightest guys you have had on this thread, partzman and gyula. I know these guys are very experienced in electronics, one I know personally and I know his long experience (over 50 years) as well as his exemplary work history and inventions. Apparently you did not take my pm seriously, instead you pander to the likes of RF who actually has provided no technical offering worthy of serious study but lots of talk, hence the protests by the above mentioned.

I am posting my pm sent to you priorly on 7/19/2019 also here in the interest of free speech and so that others can see my opinion on your actions, which you have now, it appears, persisted in.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote
Dear Stefan

While we appreciate the opportunity to post our creative efforts on OU.com, we can't help but notice that forum management specifically  moderation at the uppermost level has become overly biased and is no longer operating within the rules of  "fair play". This is a disappointment to many of us. We understand the necessity of creating an income driven engine, but when it is done at the expense of quality and fairness, you do your own integrity and the forum in general a disservice.
 We hope that you will return to your your original goodwill and sensibility of years ago, lest your forum continue to degrade in both quality content and quality membership.

The smartest people are coming to understand the truth and are jumping ship by no longer posting on OU.com, while searching for other venues with rules that demand proofs when outrageous claims are made. Maybe you have relied on the fact that in the FE game there are always newbies to be had to fill the ranks of the frustrated experienced members that leave, but at the expense of that which only experience can  give.

New FE forums spring up every year, and old poorly run dinosaurs that have not upgraded the quality of their advertising or content must go extinct. People are getting smarter and see through a lot these days.

In the final analysis it is your sandbox and you can run it with whatever quality level or lack thereof as you wish, however this 13 year member must refrain from posting until such times as the ships direction is righted.

Regards and good luck
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now you call anyone who disagrees with what is outrageously being claimed without proof a Naysayer with a capital N

Considering your new version of free speech, I wonder how quickly you will delete this.

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 23, 2019, 12:29:07 AM
From what I have seen, a common way that people can get tripped up when
analyzing circuits is they look at voltage or current or maybe electric field
or magnetic field, and if they see an increase of any of these they think maybe that
implies a magnification of output power (an increase of energy in the system over
what is coming from the input power source). In AC circuits especially, you certainly can't just look
at the magnitudes of current and voltage, as you also must accurately take into account
the phase angle between the voltage and current, so this can also trip people up, and often
does in forums like this.

From the point of view of over unity experimentation, rather than looking at individual
things like voltage magnitude or current magnitude, or magnetic field strength or whatever else
when trying to analyze how a circuit may be performing, which can easily lead you astray, if you think
in terms of energy transfer in the circuit you will get a clearer overall picture of what should be
going on, and you should see why most over unity schemes are likely doomed to failure. If we allow that
energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred from one point to another or converted from one
form to another, unless your over unity scheme incorporates a way to draw excess energy into your setup on top of
what your input power source is supplying to the system, there should be no way to achieve over unity. Your
circuit setup must draw extra energy in from outside your setup to be able to achieve over unity.

In the attached diagram I show how energy will transfer from a battery or power supply
to a high frequency generator to the transmitter LC tank circuit, and from there divide amongst
the four receiver LC tank circuits. Since all circuitry has at least some losses, the total average
ouput power will always be at least a little less than the average input power. Each receiver
LC tank circuit receives a proportional fraction of the overall energy that is being delivered into
the transmitter LC tank circuit. Unless there is some special factor at play in such a setup which
draws in energy from external to the circuitry somehow, Total Pout < Pin, (assuming you have some
type of real loads connected to each LC tank receiver).

Now you could hypthesize about a 'heaviside component' or something else which some unique aspect
of your circuit is supposedly tapping into to provide excess energy to your setup, but you would have
to have some very unusual aspect/arrangement in your circuit which ordinary circuits do not
have (keep in mind that LC circuits are very common circuit arrangments used in various types of applications),
and, more importantly, your test results would have to bear out that hypothesis of a special way of drawing
in excess energy into your setup. This will involve either careful and proper measurements or self-looping.
'Guesstimating' based on perceived bulb brightness or whatever else is just not going to be of any real
value in determining actual circuit performance. The human eye is just not very good at all at accurately
judging light bulb brightness, and especially not for translating that to an accurate average output power
estimation. A possible exception to that would be, for example, where you are powering say a 60 Watt incandescent bulb
or higher very brightly and steadily and continuously for some length of time and your input power is reasonably accurately
measured as only say a few Watts or less. Then it would seem that something unusual may very well be going on, but you
would still want to check everything over carefully and make sure you are not overlooking something.  :)

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 23, 2019, 02:21:21 AM
http://rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm (http://rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_precession (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_precession)
There is a small window where unexspected changes can happen.
"parametric generator": https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2265.0 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2265.0)
Material " temporal overunity" limit: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FResonanzkatastrophe
Atomic/ nuclear physics : pooring or enriching ( transmutation)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 23, 2019, 03:01:13 AM
deleted due to lack of interest
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 23, 2019, 03:41:02 AM
edited post
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 23, 2019, 03:51:29 AM
[
Vortex1:  But proof has been offered.  You stubbornly refuse to believe it as a possibility.  Consider the distance of the mr16s from the transmitter and remember the inverse square law.  You immediately have a closed mind approach to the evidence offered. Rick has repeatedly said you cannot prove anything over the internet. All you can do is exchange ideas. That is what this forum is for.  Anyway Rick has put his device forward for the 1 watt challenge in either one of his posts or videos (  i can't remember which).  That is what should be debated. Furthermore those members who are in the US can go to one of his meetings and verify matters for yourselves.  Now THAT come nearer to verification. Also members can be courteous. Courtesy gets you much further than insults. Fortunately Rick can give as much as he gets thrown at him. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 23, 2019, 04:17:53 AM
Stefan,
I appreciate your moderating the forum.
While I will probably not have the time to contribute here very much anymore I think that this whole thing will continue to go on and on. As I wrote, I am just about to launch the new website which I think you will like. It is a new idea and totally opensource. I trust that people will debate the core details on the free energy cheat sheet. While the move will hopefully be towards debating ideas rather than personalities, I trust some will continue to attack, and probably all the more. I was considering starting a forum for going over each point on the cheat sheet, which are Principles of Free Energy Science, I decided just to let the existing forums battle it out. It will be good to change the focus to the core issues and off the secondary or non-existent ones. If anyone makes any significant contributions to the points I will be glad to add them to the associated page that is dedicated to that point. This way a science can begin grow rather than this unorganized mad rush to look for some mysterious circuit. Tesla began this science in 1890, in those famous three lecture demonstrations, but as he later said, he was not able to change that establishment. Bearden produced an attempt to show the principles and concepts but that was far too convoluted and had little practical worth. He was not willing to break it down for the common person and when I asked him about that he showed no interest in doing that. I've been thinking about this for 15 years now. What is needed is this principles approach with illustrations, demonstrations, products mentioned that have been used for the last 100+ years, patents, etc. This will take a lot of work to do right. Not sure if anyone is willing to help as most are lost in attacking people or chasing after fictional proofs. I'll let everyone know the website when I am ready. I don't want people clicking pages and finding no content. Some of that will be happening on some pages for a while.

Rick

I have put now a few more members on moderation as they have been attacking Rick.
This way I can better see, who posts what and if these are slander or defamation postings with notechnical analysis, I will not let it get through and will be deleted...

Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 23, 2019, 06:11:04 AM
Consider the distance of the mr16s from the transmitter and remember the inverse square law. 

Hi a.king. Actually from the screen shot posted here, it appears there are coils beside coils beside coils, each coil acting to pass the energy through
to the next coil until the load is reached.

Rick has repeatedly said you cannot prove anything over the internet. All you can do is exchange ideas.


That is actually a red herring. People have not been saying 'proof' is required at this point. Only saying a reasonable demonstration
showing proper power measurements or a demonstration showing a self-looped setup would be needed before some/most people
here with experience at this sort of thing would be bothered to go to all the effort to try to replicate it. For 'proof', people would
need exact details for replication, and then multiple people would have to independently replicate and see if they could get OU results.
Before going to that stage a reasonable and proper demonstration would be required first for most people here,  I think. Seems like a perfectly
reasonable and relatively easily doable approach to me anyway. Many people have spent a lot of time and effort in the past trying to replicate
claimed OU circuits which turned out to not be OU, some actually having very poor efficiency, time and time again. All indications so far is it is
the same with this setup as well, for the reasons previously stated here.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: vasik041 on July 23, 2019, 06:27:29 AM
This is a letter of protest, and although one man's opinion, I know that it is shared by many.

 Stefan do you realize what you are doing? You have gagged two of the very brightest guys you have had on this thread, partzman and gyula. I know these guys are very experienced in electronics, one I know personally and I know his long experience (over 50 years) as well as his exemplary work history and inventions. Apparently you did not take my pm seriously, instead you pander to the likes of RF who actually has provided no technical offering worthy of serious study but lots of talk, hence the protests by the above mentioned.

I am posting my pm sent to you priorly on 7/19/2019 also here in the interest of free speech and so that others can see my opinion on your actions, which you have now, it appears, persisted in.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now you call anyone who disagrees with what is outrageously being claimed without proof a Naysayer with a capital N

Considering your new version of free speech, I wonder how quickly you will delete this.

Regards
Well said Vortex1!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Hoppy on July 23, 2019, 09:28:11 AM
Excellent post Vortex1!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on July 23, 2019, 12:53:19 PM
http://rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm (http://rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm)

Now mr lancafour, I am impressed !
I just took a look at this link .
It is an ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL EXTENSION TO Rick 's RICK (resonant induction coupler kit) !!!
A MA ZING !
That's the most interesting post around the kit that I've read so far, except for those forumers posting their kit exepriences of course.

mr a.king, too bad you did'nt say yes to my request for an Atelier ;D ! God has been doing that for me right with This !  :D

I do have those many coils due to my successful replication of Rick's kit with cheap cables, so I could be experimenting soon with introducing this Sir Barbat setup to Rick's.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 23, 2019, 01:59:46 PM
Hi a.king. Actually from the screen shot posted here, it appears there are coils beside coils beside coils, each coil acting to pass the energy through
to the next coil until the load is reached.
 
 

All the best...


Not a very scientific reply I am afraid. 
So explain to me how according to the inverse square laws the mr16 is lit at all - when all the intervening coils are also illuminated.
Unless of course Rick's theory that "each coil makes a magnetic copy of the original (at resonance) and retransmits the magnetic field" is plausible. 
Methinks some EEs should get a gaussmeter
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 23, 2019, 02:02:10 PM
I have spoken with Bill  Barbat many times it would pain him to Think people would compare the two.
If it was this easy ,Bill and MANY others would have done it decades ago ..and he is still trying ..[last I heard been a cpl years]
He has a low mass electron theory or something ? he is still trying to prove....He is a wonderful fellow

Aligning 1 molecular layer of Graphene ...oriented a very specific way is what he tries to do ...working at the level where atoms and the gaps between can be seen
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan has a mission Statement here ...which inspired for a long time... I suppose it assumes an open source venue will have persons
not coming with secrets [the two are exact opposites]
 So here we have a theme which seems to be reinterpreted ??
and many confused members who thought they understood the theme was the first guide ...and then the task [the mission statement]
secrets....or reasons for not sharing or helping or ......doesn't fit with Open source ... successful open source models are everywhere on the internet...
And to my knowledge they don't work on secrets...or half measures, Passion drives them and passionate people .
and somehow in this thread the most passionate here are seen ... ??
what to do...??




 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 23, 2019, 02:28:12 PM

Not a very scientific reply I am afraid. 
So explain to me how according to the inverse square laws the mr16 is lit at all - when all the intervening coils are also illuminated.
Unless of course Rick's theory that "each coil makes a magnetic copy of the original (at resonance) and retransmits the magnetic field" is plausible. 
Methinks some EEs should get a gaussmeter

Hi a.king. I do not see loads connected to every coil in that screen shot that was posted.
I do see lots of intervening coils between where lights are connected, exactly as I said.
As I have already pointed out to you, if coils are operating at or near resonance they will have a stronger
magnetic field around them, but they are reactive components. They are not consuming real power, but
they can pass energy on to surrounding coils, as I have mentioned. In AC circuits, coils and capacitors are not consumers of power
(except due to relatively small resistive and small equivalent losses). The bulbs however are consuming power, and the total energy
coming from the input supply/driver should be divided amongst each bulb, which appears to be consistent with what
we see in the screen shot.

I wish you good luck with it, but it is just not looking promising from what I see.
The setup appears to be acting within normal expectations. If you or someone else can demonstrate
otherwise in a reasonable way, then let's have a look.  ;)

All the best...

P.S. If you have any doubts about what has been stated, then I would suggest you connect up a similar
arrangement and try it for yourself, rather than trying to get other people to do it for you. Then you can determine
for yourself how it is really performing. Make sure you either do proper measurements or self-loop it
so you don't lead yourself further down the garden path based on more wild guessing and misunderstanding. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 23, 2019, 03:44:56 PM
Mr Void an interesting observation and thanks for you technical knowhow in this particular field you have shared.


regards Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 23, 2019, 04:25:46 PM
So is _this_ OU? I'm still trying to figure out of what RF's OU consists. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDszv5t2Bw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDszv5t2Bw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBgAAJUPsw
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 23, 2019, 06:12:12 PM
YOU MEAN YOU HAD THAT OVER UNITY DEAL UNDER YOUR BED FOR ALL THOSE YEARS.. COME ON
TK PLEASE SHOW US THE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM..4 DEGREES SOUTH OF THE EQUATOR
RIGHT SMACK IN THE INDIAN OCEAN..
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 23, 2019, 07:19:04 PM
  It is also important to consider, if the results and any additional gain are worth the effort, or  not.   
   I would love to see something useful and worthwhile, self running itself non stop. No batteries and no needed SG.   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 23, 2019, 07:24:13 PM
 the Screaming fishermen from Seychelles Wrote ""  YOU MEAN YOU HAD THAT OVER UNITY DEAL UNDER YOUR BED FOR ALL THOSE YEARS.. COME ON
TK PLEASE SHOW US THE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM..4 DEGREES SOUTH OF THE EQUATOR
RIGHT SMACK IN THE INDIAN OCEAN..
 end quote
 ...from the same Vid ...Tinsel Quote The link to the place where the basic circuit is given is given in the first of my Wireless Demo vids.end quote
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on July 23, 2019, 07:24:15 PM
[
Vortex1:  But proof has been offered.  You stubbornly refuse to believe it as a possibility.  Consider the distance of the mr16s from the transmitter and remember the inverse square law.  You immediately have a closed mind approach to the evidence offered. Rick has repeatedly said you cannot prove anything over the internet. All you can do is exchange ideas. That is what this forum is for.  Anyway Rick has put his device forward for the 1 watt challenge in either one of his posts or videos (  i can't remember which).  That is what should be debated. Furthermore those members who are in the US can go to one of his meetings and verify matters for yourselves.  Now THAT come nearer to verification. Also members can be courteous. Courtesy gets you much further than insults. Fortunately Rick can give as much as he gets thrown at him.

Dear Aking21

Wrong, fail. You keep saying "according to rick's theory" but rick doesn't have a theory. He doesn't even have a viable hypothesis that can be peer reviewed. He has only conjecture, not demonstrated and unproven thus far. In science a paper of the proposed hypothesis must undergo peer review before replication or consensus and verification can claim it to lead to a viable and acceptable  theory.

You keep referring to rick as an inventor. What has he actually invented? I can find not a single patent application or patent assigned to rick, if I am wrong, post it here for review. Can he present an original circuit that he himself has  designed?

Quote
Rick has repeatedly said you cannot prove anything over the internet.

  Unfortunately you and RF have demonstrated by your uninformed rhetoric that you have never actually worked as a profession in a modern electronic manufacturing facility as I and others here have. Between partzman and myself, we have probably a combined 100 years experience in such things. I don't know much about Gyula, but would guess from his practical electronics knowledge and communication skills that he has also spent considerable time in the industry.

In the old days before the internet, everything was usually done under one roof., circuit design concept, prototyping, verification, revisions, beta testing, bill of materials and assembly instructions etc.

Now, with the internet, various tasks are farmed out and work files are communicated via the internet between various groups, either in house or across the ocean.

A build document for e.g. a big screen TV can be created and prototyped by engineers at various locations, by passing files over the internet, then the final build information is sent to China or elsewhere and a Version1.01  implementation returns to be again verified revised as needed and then released for final production.

To make the statement that you cannot prove anything over the internet is complete naivete, and in doing this, you both expose not only your lack of experience in how things are done today, but make complete fools out of yourselves regarding the idea of "verification via internet"

So  RF where is your build document?, and test and verification procedures for your OU product which is being so earnestly promoted by your friend AKing21? Videos full of blah blah blah are not build, test and verify information and documentation.

So if the information has been presented to the forum for the "One Watt Challenge", where might I find it?

For "Vaporware", well  maybe?

As an aside, take a lesson from Brad and Graham on your videos, as Brad and Graham produce short, coherent, to the point, exactly descriptive of what they are doing and what they expect from a device. Partzman and Vasik also do this in their documentation of devices they present.

The image created on this thread is of a couple of minnows feverishly trying to do tricks for a half dozen dolphins who are now completely bored with their amateurish antics and are swimming away, no applause.

Regards

Stefan: Is this what you would call being a Naysayer (with your capital N)? A precise  explanation of how things are actually done in the real world and a call for documentation? A refutation of uninformed rhetoric? Or is this a rebuttal of certain statements, since I have no circuit, hypothesis or theory to evaluate?
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 23, 2019, 07:45:36 PM
I read this thread, but could not find scheme of Mr. Rick overunity circuit.
I also watched few of his videos but there he does not explain anything.

Can somebody point me or help me find that information of his OU device?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on July 23, 2019, 09:09:23 PM
All I'd like to say is I'm so sorry to see all those comments and responses. Thank you for W.Barbat articles , though I don't agree Hubbard used radium, because it was too expensive in his times.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 23, 2019, 10:15:06 PM
Thank you for W.Barbat articles , though I don't agree Hubbard used radium, because it was too expensive in his times.

Hi Forest.
From:
Seattle Post Intelligencer (February 26, 1928)
"In 1919 Hubbard represented the apparatus as being capable of extracting electrical energy directly from the air, but he admitted yesterday that this had been merely a subterfuge to protect his patent rights, and that, as a matter of fact, it had been a device for extracting electrical energy from radium, by means of a series of transformers which stepped up the rays. "

http://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: DavidWolff on July 23, 2019, 10:25:14 PM
Hubbard used  2.8Ghz that's faster than the electron rise time. a bit different to RF's device. If I can say that without upsetting anyone.

change the ecology around rivers. This is the power principle hidden by "authority" since 1919 that has made the cost of electricity what it is now, from expensive maintenance-hungry sources.

We hope we can set up a separate research on this principle when we finish the "Integratron".



Notes

According to G.D.Mutch, the dimensions in the table of Table 1 are taken from Hubbards actual 9-coil design:

Table 1

Hubbard Design     Outer     Inner     Total      Hubbards Frequencies
 No. Coils               8           1            9            5.340 Hz = 2.8 Ghz/ (2^19)
 Diameter mm         30         49                        10.681 Hz =€ 2.8 Ghz/ (2^18)
 Height mm             146       146                       21.362 Hz = 2.8 Ghz/ (2^17)

"Hubbard used a multiply ratio of 5.75 formulated from his knowledge of the Golden Section. Example 49/30 = 1.6333. Hubbard stated that his nine(9) coil design above stepped up the output power compared to the input power by a ratio of 3:1... Hubbard stated he could use copper wire of different diameter/gauges to complete one totally wound coil.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jimboot on July 24, 2019, 12:53:31 AM
I have put now a few more members on moderation as they have been attacking Rick.
This way I can better see, who posts what and if these are slander or defamation postings with notechnical analysis, I will not let it get through and will be deleted...

Regards, Stefan. ( Admin)


It's pretty disturbing to see some of the most respected members here moderated Stefan. I have been attacked many times and educated in the process here. As have many others, we misread or mismeasured and rely on forum like this to have the claims checked. Questioning someone who is making $ off selling devices while claiming OU without clearly demonstrating it is a community service. The ou.com brand is a promise that there will be rigorous debate. I'm afraid you are damaging it  by moderating some of the best minds you have at your service. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 24, 2019, 01:22:16 AM

It's pretty disturbing to see some of the most respected members here moderated Stefan. I have been attacked many times and educated in the process here. As have many others, we misread or mismeasured and rely on forum like this to have the claims checked. Questioning someone who is making $ off selling devices while claiming OU without clearly demonstrating it is a community service. The ou.com brand is a promise that there will be rigorous debate. I'm afraid you are damaging it  by moderating some of the best minds you have at your service.
I agree. Please Stefan re-instate those respected members, who are actually builders and highly experienced researchers. They are telling the truth. It makes absolutely no sense that these people would be put on moderation at all. Yet things like this (https://overunity.com/18285/success-and-loss/45/) are allowed to happen.    :-[
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 24, 2019, 02:07:52 AM
  Guys:  Did Stefan actually tell us WHO those guys were? Or are we barking up the wrong tree...
  I know that at least one of those misunderstandings has been cleared up. Without mentioning names. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: DavidWolff on July 24, 2019, 02:26:34 AM
I'm sort of new at posting but have been popping in and not getting too involved in the policies of the admin's views etc
Does, anyway have anyone seen Hoppy or AG or even Gyula don't know any others?

Ray
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 24, 2019, 03:41:44 AM
Nick Z
I have not seen Hoppy post today or since ....AG more quiet than usual and the magnificent gyula  is silent ...Partzman has been trying very hard to understand the claims here and he is a steadfast experimenter who never quits trying ...but is more than frustrated by recent events..and pushed beyond his limits ...
Vortex 1 [member ion elsewhere] who has helped countless people with simple measurement protocols [his super simple fixed loss to ambient protocol being just one example]

Has written a very fair assessment of recent events as well as what the more diligent open source community here has grown to expect.Builders that build and share are as rare as hens teeth in these venues and are the backbone of this one ...Their passion for this cause and their zeal ...was met with half measures and unknown motives , I suppose to teach in a forum for free and sell to others at a cost ...would be hard to explain to a customer ?

 All who build here know.. any core as shown by the vendor's kit here... with a few specs... is reproducible in short order by the builders here !they do it all the time ... a schematic and a few words... a smidge of effort and none of this would have happened
and every builder here knows that...
open source works exactly like this .one man helping another !!
and there are plenty of great open source experiments coming to
the group..but without builders ..and those who help guide them ..with 100% transparency for all to check ?

Hard things like this really do test a group ...and here there is a group which shows they stick together ,,,and talent which boggles my mind.
 Stefan we know this has been a long trip for you, and it may seem we don't get that you have to pay the bills and perhaps justify all the time it takes to run this forum...we get it !!

 Also I understand we can go to a demonstration of Ricks work and take measurements to see things in person.as he has recommended many times here. In this group we have persons who practice metrology [as it applies to auditing joules within a circuit... also caloric measurement experts ..]
With very simple protocols , and working around meter reading and other issues.. exceptionally accurate results can be expected, looking forward to that opportunity !!
Chet

















Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: e2matrix on July 24, 2019, 03:48:24 AM

It's pretty disturbing to see some of the most respected members here moderated Stefan. I have been attacked many times and educated in the process here. As have many others, we misread or mismeasured and rely on forum like this to have the claims checked. Questioning someone who is making $ off selling devices while claiming OU without clearly demonstrating it is a community service. The ou.com brand is a promise that there will be rigorous debate. I'm afraid you are damaging it  by moderating some of the best minds you have at your service.


Ditto.  Agree.   If someone like Gyula has been put on moderation that is totally nuts.   He not only has the highest integrity but some of the greatest knowledge.   And others here that have helped so much and built so much.   Come on Stefan.   I don't want to start thinking Rick is paying you ....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 24, 2019, 04:23:06 AM
  Well guys, some of your "best builders" are very much still at it, elsewhere.I  heard something about stomach issues, and such. As I post no threat,  just a low key personallity, and have a strong stomach, I have been spared, for now.   Please be patient, it will all come out in the wash.  Notice though, how many or even how most of the old timmers here, come together in moments like these.   Keeping the faith,    NickZ
   Hey, anybody seen Rick?   Alright already, just kidding...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on July 24, 2019, 04:26:49 AM
It is all quite sad indeed.


But, should anyone truly be surprised?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on July 24, 2019, 06:57:47 AM
I must say Stefan,you have certainly downsized you forum membership here. Moderating those members that have given the most here,and removing moderator privileges from those who never even made a post here on this thread.

Anyway,count me out as well.
I hope Rick is worth all you have lost.
I never thought this forum would become another energetic forum.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 24, 2019, 01:54:55 PM
Hi Chet,

You mention my silence, well, I do not really have much more to add to this topic beyond what I have done so far. A couple of my important technical questions have remained unanswered, no idea whether Rick would reply or not. It is up to him of course I do not expect anything. Time will tell the answers.

Nick, my stomack is fine, fortunately I have never had any series problems with it for many decades.

Greetings,
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 24, 2019, 02:08:42 PM
Oh man, don't go away mad. In fact don't go away!

Some people may find this video on topic. I apologise for it being so short... only a hair over nine minutes. SO I am barely able to present the full details of the circuit board and layout, show the schematic, show the effect, show the brilliant bulbs, set up and display exactly what I'm doing on the oscilloscope, along with presenting a clear explanation of what I'm doing. And all for free, too, not even any ads.

I know many of you have seen it before in different contexts but it is extremely relevant here, and not just for the electronics. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChV7n0EY2h0

(But is it OU?)    8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 24, 2019, 02:24:02 PM
Isn't that the point ?
its not energetic forum..we define who and what we are by our actions not our words ,and where we happen to be geographically or posting... has nothing to do with endorsing the place we physically stand .and more about what we stand for.
people often ask me why I post at energetic forum..it is not becauseI stand for book sales or selling secrets ....same here...the paper on the wallsor advertisements ...yes it looks similar.has nothing to do with me ..its not my house I am a guest ,Stefan has to pay for all of this not me or anyone else here.

its for the mission ...actually his mission statement pretty much describes it for me.
If you want change in the world "be that change"!!
I know thats how you roll Brad ,and all the others like you who share their precious time and resources ...here and elsewhere

this place is not about this nasty piece of business
its about what we do here !!


I see Tinsel posted while I typed and agrees
please don't leave here ...
this will get resolved ...and we will be stronger for it [better understanding
of how to proceed successfully

Tinsels  Vid again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChV7n0EY2h0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChV7n0EY2h0)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: benfr on July 24, 2019, 02:41:18 PM
I read this thread, but could not find scheme of Mr. Rick overunity circuit.
I also watched few of his videos but there he does not explain anything.

Can somebody point me or help me find that information of his OU device?

Thanks!

hi, well please check my first post on this thread where I am giving specs to start the experimentation of the kit from Rick Friedrich.
Please forget now the ou as you will need first to go through amperage multiplication and/or voltage amplification. If you really want to kick yourself start in, I would recommend to buy the kit (100 usd or so). But a little bit of the information in the kit I have shared in a try to give interest in the kit to grow, that information is in my post (series coils aounrd 157 uH, capacitor of 100 pF, square frequency of 1.25 MHZ - I have wonrgly typed .885 MHZ but the frequency to try is approx 1.25).

Be ready to light leds and bulbs you will not be able to otherwise  ::)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 24, 2019, 03:17:02 PM
Stefan,

Why you did not give Mr. Rick overunity prize?
He have OU device as you and himself claim.
Powering boat for 3 years is enough prove for him to get that prize.

It will be more than fair to reward that honest man and help him to achieve his goals.
Through this thread now we all know about his products and new website,
while we lost few of best members here.

Good work!

By the way, where is Mr. Rick now?
And his promised video with step by step explanation?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 24, 2019, 05:57:02 PM
Here member TinselKoala and gyula and others helped itsu get his circuit auto tuning to make this coil work easier
itsu Quote
Can use this stable auto resonance circuit to investigate further on the only anomaly seen during my testing, which was the 2 horizontal satellite coils
getting their leds brighter when inserting another satellite coil vertically inbetween the Big coil and these horizontal coils.

Could this be the sympathetic resonance being mentioned??

I cannot link to my post on OU.com directly somehow, so use this link to get to the top of the page, then a few posts down (post #797 today):
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/975/ (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/975/)

My linked video there showing the effect here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY)

I possible explanation done by partzman here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536448/#msg536448 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536448/#msg536448)   
,,,end quote NOTE itsu has a new toy [Circuit] and loves it
Posted with permission of the builder .more info to follow [Circuit for auto resonance]Chet K
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 24, 2019, 07:05:30 PM
Powering boat for 3 years is enough prove for him to get that prize.

Hi WhatIsIt. Unless he has been operating that boat very regularly all throughout the year
for three years, which is probably not the case, then have you considered that lead acid batteries
that sit unused need to be charged up about once a month or so to be kept in good condition?
If the batteries are left to sit unused they will slowly lose charge, so the batteries must be topped up
with a charger from time to time. Given this, and assuming it is lead acid batteries being used, it seems
likely that Rick would have to top up his batteries in his boat with a charger from time to time.
Something to consider anyway.  :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on July 24, 2019, 07:07:02 PM
GOOD GRIEF!!

This is getting beyond even Monty Python.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI

Stefan

Please remove the moderation so that we can continue in a normal fashion once again.

Regards Grum.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 24, 2019, 08:02:02 PM
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1455.0
PhysicsProf< Reply 9- 2012-05-09
Lux/Lumen ratio for input/ output measurement
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 25, 2019, 12:11:29 AM
LancalV 
 thank you ,I see also Farmhand in your Link ,have not heard much from him since he moved off the farm hope he is well ,some experiments on the table soon that he might want to become involved in [if he still has his big Tesla stuff ?or just for opinions ??

Here some input from Fe metrologist on what Circuits can be inside todays LED's
QUOTE  "The circuit inside those bulbs is a High Brightness High Frequency LED driver chip, the MAX16820.  attached
 is the Data Sheet for this chip.  the characteristics of this chip will make anyone trying to associate light output with input power go "nutso". Just read the first page,"
end quote Chet K
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 25, 2019, 01:15:26 AM
I have pointed out a number of times in the past here that using LEDs or LED lights in OU experimentation
can be very misleading, especially for the inexperienced and those not very knowledgeable in electronics and physics.
LEDs and LED bulbs typically glow quite brightly while consuming relatively low amounts of power.  This fools
many a noob.  ;D

Use of an incandescent bulb or a non-inductive resistor as a load or loads is always a much wiser way to go.
Also, testing at fairly low power levels leaves more room for measurement errors, so try to avoid doing that
where possible as well. Not that I think my pointing this out yet again will really make much difference.
People with little understanding of electronics and physics will continue to make the same mistakes over and over,
and then they will tell people who do have experience in electronics that they are wrong if they point out
obvious problem areas like this.  This cycle keeps repeating, ad infinitum. :o

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Mannix on July 25, 2019, 03:06:36 AM
I think that many of you are not considering that this website is about readership and interest and there certianly is  a lot to read, and a lot of interest..

Rick does write well,  and knows how passionate perple are to do the deed .
There are of course many here trying to save the ignorant from thenselves ,a noble gesture .

This website is a stepping stone about hands on stuff and any body with lots of hands on can see that there are some issues with many statements made .

Its hard to avoid this becomming personal but in this regard Rick is well versed and basically wins debates right or wrong.

A skilled politician and lobbyist who has worked with the "market" for many years .

May I suggest that feeding his expertise here will not convince him of any technical errors as what he may lack in providing proof he more that makes up for in his ability to do well in debates .

This thread contains enough to provide him with material to include in his futute writings that he can use as he wants to within legal boundaries which
he knows well.

Notice how the answer, if you can call it that is always before the question and the question is quoted?

If members who bite ,leave their info is with him forever to use or not ,to change context or not .

That said many will have fun playing with what he offers as the hope of OU may be more fun that the achivement as was the case with Stevem Mark.

Be polite and keep it non personal and I know that is impossible for some whos technical ability is beyond reproach .

Please think kindergarden and the teacher , who knows? Perhaps somebody will stumble onto something regardless of the futility, that some see so clearly.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 25, 2019, 03:39:48 AM
Nice you stopped by Mannix ..hope all is well with you .and yes you just never know ?

  our Friend gyula sent me a note.
 Hi Chet,
 
 Well, you mentioned my silence the other day but I do not really have much more to add to this topic beyond what I have done so far and also considering what Mannix just wrote.  A couple of my important technical questions have remained unanswered, no idea whether Rick would reply or not. It is up to him of course I do not expect anything. Time will tell the answers.
 
 Nick, my stomack is fine, fortunately I have never had any series problems with it for many decades.
Greetings,
Gyula
end quote respectfully Chet
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on July 25, 2019, 10:46:12 AM
Ramset Yes what you say is just so but just asking Richard Fried could get you in hot water as well.
He is a Taurean energy with problems to share It's best not to get involved perhaps

Any way watch this video this proves what John bedini said was true, but what did hes say
well that positive energy creates losses, watch his other video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URbMtyl2w2s

I'm not going to post any more with all these mind games going on, t's just too much hassle.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on July 25, 2019, 03:02:28 PM
I have pointed out a number of times in the past here that using LEDs or LED lights in OU experimentation
can be very misleading, especially for the inexperienced and those not very knowledgeable in electronics and physics.
LEDs and LED bulbs typically glow quite brightly while consuming relatively low amounts of power.  This fools
many a noob.  ;D

Use of an incandescent bulb or a non-inductive resistor as a load or loads is always a much wiser way to go.
Also, testing at fairly low power levels leaves more room for measurement errors, so try to avoid doing that
where possible as well. Not that I think my pointing this out yet again will really make much difference.
People with little understanding of electronics and physics will continue to make the same mistakes over and over,
and then they will tell people who do have experience in electronics that they are wrong if they point out
obvious problem areas like this.  This cycle keeps repeating, ad infinitum. :o


A double thumbs-up Void.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 25, 2019, 04:41:00 PM
Nice you stopped by Mannix ..hope all is well with you .and yes you just never know ?

  our Friend gyula sent me a note.
 Hi Chet,
 
 Well, you mentioned my silence the other day but I do not really have much more to add to this topic beyond what I have done so far and also considering what Mannix just wrote.  A couple of my important technical questions have remained unanswered, no idea whether Rick would reply or not. It is up to him of course I do not expect anything. Time will tell the answers.
 
 Nick, my stomack is fine, fortunately I have never had any series problems with it for many decades.
Greetings,
Gyula
end quote respectfully Chet

   Gyula:  Good to hear that your stomach is fine. Mine is also doing much better now as well, as there has been nothing to upset it, lately. This thread has been doing much better also, without all the commotion, and distractions, and insults.
   Keep up the good work, along with any of the other members continuing doing tests, elsewhere.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 25, 2019, 11:18:28 PM
People are wondering where I am. Well I really don't have the time for this right now. I only lingered on for so long here because I had to bring things to a completion. I spent way more time on all this than I should have. I don't regret it, but I have too much business to attend to to worry about these little children playing games. It's been really funny at times. But it just goes nowhere. If I come back in another 5 years I'm sure everyone will be exactly in the same places as before. Maybe moved on to another personality.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jimboot on July 26, 2019, 12:41:40 AM
People are wondering where I am. Well I really don't have the time for this right now. I only lingered on for so long here because I had to bring things to a completion. I spent way more time on all this than I should have. I don't regret it, but I have too much business to attend to to worry about these little children playing games. It's been really funny at times. But it just goes nowhere. If I come back in another 5 years I'm sure everyone will be exactly in the same places as before. Maybe moved on to another personality.
what a rude an arrogant comment. It speaks volumes about you as man.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on July 26, 2019, 03:04:04 AM
what a rude an arrogant comment. It speaks volumes about you as man.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


Indeed.


What will we find when we check in with Rick in 5 years? (yep, a rhetorical question).
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 26, 2019, 03:17:17 AM
Today Rick F gave a gift to the world that will Change our world forever ,tomorrow is the dawn of a new era where wars for oil and resources famine ,drought ..mass extinctions will be in our past ,air pollution Global warming etc....Our children and......Oh
Oh wait ,I'm sorry Rick F has more important things to do
quote  I have too much business to attend to to worry about these little children.end quote
see you in Church I suppose Rick ? here in these forums a few hundred thousand people working to teach and change the world ,to save many lives and stop much suffering to end oil wars Mass migrations Starvation Famine mass extinctions and ....
 We Wait......
Chet K
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 26, 2019, 03:31:22 AM
You don't realize that oil was the old way, but it has changed right now. Get ready for another new world order… Anyway, yeah, I am doing major environmental projects... Can't stop wars with tech as tech only gives more reason for wars.

Today Rick F gave a gift to the world that will Change our world forever ,tomorrow is the dawn of a new era where wars for oil and resources famine ,drought ..mass extinctions will be in our past ,air pollution Global warming etc....Our children and......Oh
Oh wait ,I'm sorry Rick F has more important things to do
quote  I have too much business to attend to to worry about these little children.end quote
see you in Church I suppose Rick ? here in these forums a few hundred thousand people working to teach and change the world ,to save many lives and stop much suffering to end oil wars Mass migrations Starvation Famine mass extinctions and ....
 We Wait......
Chet K
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: NickZ on July 26, 2019, 03:32:59 AM
     5 years children,  we got plenty of time.   No self runner, yet. Ah, this ìs only kindergarden...
   I wonder if I 'll make it to the Master Class.
   
   
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 26, 2019, 03:59:52 AM
Rick every breath  you take every beat of your heart ...someone will die for lack of this tech To tell yourself you've got the crystal ball that see's another reality ? some hypothetical path you've modeled to justify all the deaths of those who wait...
a big responsibility ..a big choice ....life or death.
and holding that power ...to chose.

every beat .... I could not imagine just one life suffering do to my??

what was your reason again ??.





 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 26, 2019, 04:42:01 AM
Chet, you are talking like you think RF has some secret path to Overunity. But he doesn't! He is Yet Another False Claimant who cannot support his claims with actual properly conducted and monitored demonstrations or evidence of any other kind.  He pretends to "teach" but rambles on incessantly and cannot stick to a single topic. He cannot answer simple questions with simple answers -- or deliberately chooses not to, in order to obfuscate and misdirect. Of this there are pages and pages of examples in this thread and in his feature-length videos. He doesn't have time to consider what other people might be telling him or demonstrating, because he is too busy _talking_ about something or another.
So don't worry about RF doing the hit-and-run thing, coming in here and stirring up a wake then chickening out when he starts to get real challenges. We've seen them come and go, he isn't the first and won't be the last. And in terms of being interesting and holding some potential... well, if he hadn't been associated with JB for so long, we'd have laughed him off the forums long ago. It just took a little while longer, that's all.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 26, 2019, 05:37:02 AM
I DESMOND THE DEMONDS INVOKE MILEHIGH TO APPEAR INTO OUR MIST YOU HAVE BEEN SUMMONED
TO STIR THE NOW FERMENTED SHIT.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 26, 2019, 10:04:40 AM
Good grief am I free at last ? can I now actually post a message ?

TEST TEST TEST? Oh yessssssssssssss!  :)

Rick I congratulate you you have successfully silenced any one and every one who knows any thing of importance!
Oh well done !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on July 26, 2019, 11:04:28 AM
JUST BECAUSE I HAVE INVOKE YOU FROM THE ABYSS RAYCATHODE, YOU BETTER BE
NICE OTHER WISE I HAVE TO NOSE RING YOU..
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 26, 2019, 11:13:33 AM
JUST BECAUSE I HAVE INVOKE YOU FROM THE ABYSS RAYCATHODE, YOU BETTER BE
NICE OTHER WISE I HAVE TO NOSE RING YOU..
Are you emphasising your own self importance  ? very amusing.
Let us not lose track of the purpose of this thread in Ricks exit, we need to refocus on reality, don't you agree?

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 26, 2019, 03:41:30 PM
If I come back in another 5 years I'm sure everyone will be exactly in the same places as before. Maybe moved on to another personality.

You been running around with the flag for a little bit too much time.
I would not count that you will be amongst us in 5 years.
You painted bulls eye on your back.

Not all people who will come to your workshops will be there to see your tech.
And it does not matter if it is real any more.
You just been too loud.

Goodbye Mr. Friedrich and Farewell!

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 26, 2019, 06:54:01 PM
Chet, you are talking like you think RF has some secret path to Overunity. But he doesn't! He is Yet Another False Claimant who cannot support his claims with actual properly conducted and monitored demonstrations or evidence of any other kind.  He pretends to "teach" but rambles on incessantly and cannot stick to a single topic. He cannot answer simple questions with simple answers -- or deliberately chooses not to, in order to obfuscate and misdirect. Of this there are pages and pages of examples in this thread and in his feature-length videos. He doesn't have time to consider what other people might be telling him or demonstrating, because he is too busy _talking_ about something or another.
So don't worry about RF doing the hit-and-run thing, coming in here and stirring up a wake then chickening out when he starts to get real challenges. We've seen them come and go, he isn't the first and won't be the last. And in terms of being interesting and holding some potential... well, if he hadn't been associated with JB for so long, we'd have laughed him off the forums long ago. It just took a little while longer, that's all.


Well I see that you are happy now that Rick has gone.
Could YOU show us the way to overunity please........
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on July 26, 2019, 07:04:37 PM
I  don't get it guys. You talk so much instead of check Rick claims.
You have so much experience and digital tools to easy disprove or prove if in resonance there is energy gain.What do you waiting for? Just a parallel resonant tank circuit with high gain (high Q) and a stable resitive load. First measure the power dissipated with DC current then do it again in tank circuit. If the input energy is lower yet output energy the same in both cases then there is energy gain,right ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: T-1000 on July 26, 2019, 07:24:44 PM
Hi all,
Since I got dragged to read last 30 pages of this thread.. What a mess.
Someone makes claim, the war of words starts, people start to be cannon fodders, then start to leave forum. And as always in the end, no real physical experiments/results to be replicated and confirmed or declined by independent parties.
Oh well, seems most people never learn from history mistakes.. Another thread to hit the dust without real results.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 26, 2019, 07:27:51 PM
Forest
Exactly what do you think this guy was doing here ?without any guidance whatsoever from Rick ?
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536598/#msg536598 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536598/#msg536598)
and AKing..yes if he plays games here with fellows who try so hard like above link ?and who left here do to abuse..yes its better we still have some members left here ..

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 26, 2019, 07:39:39 PM

Well I see that you are happy now that Rick has gone.
Could YOU show us the way to overunity please........

King,

Are you really so naive?
After 100 of pages Mr. Rick did not show OU or how to do it.

Nobody wanted Rick to leave!
Even I was very friendly to him until he started to insult and to be rude.

But everyone wanted his bad behaviour and insults gone.
He is been here to promote himself, not to show us anything.

You are still in last stage of begging him for OU he does not have or he does not perfected it.
He was stuck with his design and wanted all of you to solve it for him, while he promote his bussines.
This are the words of my friend, Rick customer and someone close to him, like you.

I dont have anything against Rick, and if he comes back and start to explain things with measurements, it is ok with me. But you already know that wont happen.


If you know his secret then you can lead and show forum how to do it.
But do you know secret?
And is it there secret at all?

Please, dont get my words insulting. I am far from trying to insult you!

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 26, 2019, 07:53:14 PM
I  don't get it guys. You talk so much instead of check Rick claims.
You have so much experience and digital tools to easy disprove or prove if in resonance there is energy gain.What do you waiting for? Just a parallel resonant tank circuit with high gain (high Q) and a stable resitive load. First measure the power dissipated with DC current then do it again in tank circuit. If the input energy is lower yet output energy the same in both cases then there is energy gain,right ?

Forrest,

Itsu is honest and experienced member who really tried to replicate Rick's work.
He did it professional with measurements.
From Rick was expected to involve effort in Itsu work and that way show to everyone on forum what difference is between his and Itsu setup.
That way we will all learn how to do it.

But Rick did none of that. He started to insult Itsu honest work up to the point where Itsu did not have strenght to stand it any more, just like you will not if you were in Itsu skin.

For me, Itsu showed great patience towards Rick and his insults.
I would react the same, and you probably.

Put yourself in Itsu skin!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 26, 2019, 08:13:21 PM
Most of you does not know that Mr. Friedrich started as car part thief.
He got caught by police and then he met God.

After starting to work with Bedini he saw oportunity. The OU work can bring income.
He did not stole from Bedini, he just watched and learned how sets can be sold and make money.
In 15 years he did not move from Bedini point, but he learned how to sell the information.

First rule: Never disclose anything if you want to sale continue.

Second rule: Involve everyone so they can solve some things for you.

If this truth insult anyone, you have google and check it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on July 26, 2019, 08:51:35 PM
Forget about Rick and check yourself if there is energy gain in simple LCR tank circuit.Look - if there is energy gain then the seup of many coupled coils is just overcomplication of this simple LCR tank circuit.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 26, 2019, 09:02:45 PM
 Rick was able to lit some 12V LED's in [below] 5 Watt realm total power [as we 'think'] with his gate driver. The voltage across the primary coil/ cap. was 5000 Volt.
If we want to achieve 5000 Watts gathered output power to deliver to our house e.g. . Then the voltage across the .coil/ cap. has to be around
 150 000 volt. If I'm right.
Just think that the distances between the plates of the primary  [1 nF]  air capacitor has to be about 16 mm [2/3 ''].

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 26, 2019, 09:09:42 PM
Forget about Rick and check yourself if there is energy gain in simple LCR tank circuit.Look - if there is energy gain then the seup of many coupled coils is just overcomplication of this simple LCR tank circuit.

Fair enough!

I did. With every added coil ouput splits more and more.
I concluded it is radio station which was invented long before Rick.

What about your find? Do you did any measurements which showed more that input?

I would not write all of this things if I did not tried.
Or there is something different in your setup which I am not aware.

One question: How many of Rick coils do you need to power TV. 1000+ ??
If he had something, he did not perfected that.

Maybe you can show how to do it. With measurements off course.
I dont have nothing against it!

Otherwise you can post all day in vain.

Your post showing me like you detected energy gain. Please instruct me how to do it, so I can detect energy gain as well!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 26, 2019, 09:32:03 PM
Rick was able to lit some 12V LED's in [below] 5 Watt realm total power [as we 'think'] with his gate driver. The voltage across the primary coil/ cap. was 5000 Volt.
If we want to achieve 5000 Watts gathered output power to deliver to our house e.g. . Then the voltage across the .coil/ cap. has to be around
 150 000 volt. If I'm right.
Just think that the distances between the plates of the primary  [1 nF]  air capacitor has to be about 16 mm [2/3 ''].

Arne

First of all. Driving mosfet without gate driver is like forcing horse to run on one leg.
Nothing magical in it. With gate driver mosfet has speed as it should by specs.
With proper pull down resistors.
Without gate driver it is nothing. Only for child play.

Second. Power consists of  2 variables. Voltage and current. Only voltage is nothing.
 You can do it with flyback more efficiently, if you need only voltage.

And if you want real speed. SIC diodes and mosfets. Future!
SIC diodes has no reverse time recovery.
SIC mosfets are drived with 20V, you should look their performance.
Silicon Carbide is speed! Low resistance.

I looked at Ricks mosfets, they are medium speed one.
After his 15 years of experience he choose very poorly mosfets and he talks how speed is important.
I can only laugh at his choice. Period.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on July 26, 2019, 10:18:26 PM
First of all. Driving mosfet without gate driver is like forcing horse to run on one leg.
Nothing magical in it. With gate driver mosfet has speed as it should by specs.
With proper pull down resistors.
Without gate driver it is nothing. Only for child play.

Second. Power consists of  2 variables. Voltage and current. Only voltage is nothing.
 You can do it with flyback more efficiently, if you need only voltage.

And if you want real speed. SIC diodes and mosfets. Future!
SIC diodes has no reverse time recovery.
SIC mosfets are drived with 20V, you should look their performance.
Silicon Carbide is speed! Low resistance.

I looked at Ricks mosfets, they are medium speed one.
After his 15 years of experience he choose very poorly mosfets and he talks how speed is important.
I can only laugh at his choice. Period.

You are right on It is good to see someone telling the real story about how to switch rapidly and other points you made.

From reading your posts, you are obviously well versed in the art,

But it us frustrating to deal with, or try to teach "the man of the hour".

Regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Vortex1 on July 26, 2019, 10:36:01 PM
Today Rick F gave a gift to the world that will Change our world forever ,tomorrow is the dawn of a new era where wars for oil and resources famine ,drought ..mass extinctions will be in our past ,air pollution Global warming etc....Our children and......Oh
Oh wait ,I'm sorry Rick F has more important things to do
quote  I have too much business to attend to to worry about these little children.end quote
see you in Church I suppose Rick ? here in these forums a few hundred thousand people working to teach and change the world ,to save many lives and stop much suffering to end oil wars Mass migrations Starvation Famine mass extinctions and ....
 We Wait......
Chet K


Rick never had any gift to give. Period. End of story.

His only gift to this forum was his exit.

Now maybe serious work can commence without the profuse verbiage.

Itsu made a beautiful replication and accurate measurements that showed no excess power to be had.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on July 26, 2019, 10:36:56 PM
Well I see that you are happy now that Rick has gone.

No one is happy about any aspect of this type of recurring debacle, including Rick leaving. And this includes Rick's poor attitude and over-reaction to relevant, honest questions.

Quote
Could YOU show us the way to overunity please........

I would not be using such words unless I was 100% certain of my stance... are you? Would you (or Rick for that matter) bet your house that Rick has OU devices? Of course you wouldn't, because you are not 100% certain, and neither is Rick.

And that is one primary reason why these forums are here; to share, discuss, evaluate, and test people's ideas, and in doing so everyone learns something. One day perhaps we'll even discover true OU. But none of this can happen when folks have such poor attitudes, and/or are simply trying to sell kits, claiming the sorts of things Rick was claiming with his coils.

Then there's the all-too-often encountered "Dunning-Kruger effect", but I am not going to go there...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 26, 2019, 10:38:24 PM
seaad, why "5000 Watt " and how : as Wattpeak or Wh per day ?
WhatsIsIt : how important is for the speed the " frequency modulation" ?
Mr.Friedrich wrote about motor use : capacitive,resistive,inductive load ( and inrush current/ nominal current ratio)
When 50 Hz represents 3000 rpm rotative and 60 Hz 3600 rpmhow many rotations represent KHz,MHz signal cycles ?
What is BEMF in grid- connected appliances : look for negative power factor
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 26, 2019, 10:53:58 PM
You are right on It is good to see someone telling the real story about how to switch rapidly and other points you made.

From reading your posts, you are obviously well versed in the art,

But it us frustrating to deal with, or try to teach "the man of the hour".

Regards

Sometimes fancy knowledge discourage members up to the point they give up because they think they know less.
It is not true. We are all here in same pot.
Even SG3525, IR2110. IRF 740 basic setup on/of 30/20 ns outperforms any Ricks mosfets he has on his web sale. And it cost peanuts.

I dont want to talk about Rick anymore.
Members of this forum has to unite and share.
When sharing, something always pops up. Thats the point. You need nobody.
And you have everything. Just become all friends and work together.
Nick Z is trying that for a long time.
He does his thing and not depend on some messiah.

I am trying to be fair for anyone. Smallest and biggest. As much as I can.
Can stand critics also if I am wrong.
I am small guy just as everyone else. No big deal!

Dont be frustrated, you all are doing good!
The truth will pop up, if not today, then some other day. It will!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 27, 2019, 12:37:51 AM
seaad, why "5000 Watt " and how : as Wattpeak or Wh per day ?
WhatsIsIt : how important is for the speed the " frequency modulation" ?
Mr.Friedrich wrote about motor use : capacitive,resistive,inductive load ( and inrush current/ nominal current ratio)
When 50 Hz represents 3000 rpm rotative and 60 Hz 3600 rpmhow many rotations represent KHz,MHz signal cycles ?
What is BEMF in grid- connected appliances : look for negative power factor

Hehe, ok.
Something normal in AC is reactive power. It reflects from consumer inductive and capacitive load back to power companies generators overloading them.
Simpliest form of dealing with reactive power in AC is capacitor (of certain value) per motor, inductive load.

Also, power companies uses big motors/generators for compensation of the whole grid at once.

Rick is transforming DC to AC with his pulsed motor and use same to absorb reactive power from load, making motor a generator, and result with additional torque, making more power for load which reflects more reactive power back to motor/generator.
Balance between load and motor makes reactive power to power motor, so battery does not have to push much, while it powers load. Load has to be inductive or capacitive nature to achieve that.

He did not invent this. This exist for a long time.

Google how electric companies make battles with AC reactive power and it will be clear to you. They use big motor/generators for balance of grid power. Very expensive solutions for large grids.
Which makes some of Rick statements true.
It is foggy does he understand this.
He does not know how to use voltage/current probe for math power measuring, so it is not clear how much he understand of the whole thing.

As for power in W. Million volts does not mean 5000W. It depends how much current that million volts has.

If you use bipolar transistors you will never see effects which mosfets produce. Thats speed.
You just have to try both and compare. Once you do, you will love mosfets!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 27, 2019, 12:53:59 AM
Is the usage of reactive power OU.?
NO!
It can reduce power consumption, but it is not OU!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 27, 2019, 01:06:55 AM
Same goes for the power factor in AC. Correcting power factor with caps of certain values on motors gives more power to motor. It is all about phase correction.
Just google power factor correction methods.

Rick dis not invent it. That problems exists from Tesla times and first grid generators.
How to compensate reactive power and use it to benefit power companies, not the consumers.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2019, 01:37:09 AM
Sometimes fancy knowledge discourage members up to the point they give up because they think they know less.
It is not true. We are all here in same pot.
Even SG3525, IR2110. IRF 740 basic setup on/of 30/20 ns outperforms any Ricks mosfets he has on his web sale. And it cost peanuts.

I dont want to talk about Rick anymore.
Members of this forum has to unite and share.
When sharing, something always pops up. Thats the point. You need nobody.
And you have everything. Just become all friends and work together.
Nick Z is trying that for a long time.
He does his thing and not depend on some messiah.

I am trying to be fair for anyone. Smallest and biggest. As much as I can.
Can stand critics also if I am wrong.
I am small guy just as everyone else. No big deal!

Dont be frustrated, you all are doing good!
The truth will pop up, if not today, then some other day. It will!
You are right in all you say (and some of us have said most of it before), but there is one point I'd like to clear up: In the coil setup RF showed and talked about interminably in this thread, and which our friend worked on to replicate, he doesn't use a mosfet at all, I thought. He is just using the gate driver directly to drive the LC tank.
I don't know what he has on his web sale but as far as I can tell he only used the gate driver directly for RF's radio transmitter in this thread.

It proved impossible to carry on an actual dialog with RF, as others have pointed out. He has his answers before the questions, and the actual questions are rarely  answered, and when they are, they often turn out to be claims without evidence, instead of factual answers.
What is the exact make and model of the LED bulbs he used in the photo which has appeared several times in various threads?  Do his, or do his not, incorporate the high brightness LED driver chip MAX16820?

Were he still posting I'm sure he'd generate a wall of text, quote the question _after_ the answer, and not actually tell us the make and model of the bulbs.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 27, 2019, 01:38:17 AM

Rick never had any gift to give. Period. End of story.

His only gift to this forum was his exit.

Now maybe serious work can commence without the profuse verbiage.

Itsu made a beautiful replication and accurate measurements that showed no excess power to be had.
When?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 27, 2019, 01:51:02 AM
A King I had thought you were trying to guide this persons efforts  [he does not want to see his handle here involved in conflicts he has had his fill of nonsense and fighting ..
link here  https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536598/#msg536598
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2019, 02:28:30 AM

Well I see that you are happy now that Rick has gone.
Could YOU show us the way to overunity please........
Is this OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb1UpX0-Q00
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on July 27, 2019, 02:50:45 AM
What really amazes me about these types of forums is the attitude so many people have.  They are perfectly willing to let someone else do their thinking for them.  I guess it is just a sign of how lazy our society has gotten.  How is someone with no training in electronics supposed to know if what they are being told is true or not if they are too lazy to take the time to learn the basics?  At the very beginning of this fiasco a couple of us suggested that something wasn't right because Rick insisted he got his "Great Info" from Don Smith and we both explained that Don Smith didn't know what he was talking about and gave a couple of examples of his bad information.

Now if someone didn't believe us then why didn't they take the time to do some research and learn some of the basics of electronics.  As far as I know not one person who believed in the claims took the time to research the claims made by Don Smith or even looked at the ARRL handbook he misused when giving information.  So if Rick is using bad information, how could he then be giving out good information?  It doesn't make sense.

I sincerely applaud all those who tried to reason with Rick but I am also not surprised by the outcome.  I am shocked at the attitude of the admin of this forum but we all make mistakes so that should be forgiven as I think he has probably learned from this experience also.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on July 27, 2019, 03:39:50 AM
Yes for you it is OU. That Video and your questions convince everyone why you are the big expert here in this forum.
What is the next? that you ask that the lighting on your yellowed laboratory is also OU?
Is this OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb1UpX0-Q00
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on July 27, 2019, 05:52:37 AM
Is this OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb1UpX0-Q00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb1UpX0-Q00)


Apparently for some, if you say it is OU, then they will just take you at your word.


No fact checking, no critical thinking, just blind enthusiasm.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 27, 2019, 06:58:08 AM
Is this OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb1UpX0-Q00

Maybe not OU, because there is no source.
But free energy for sure.

If you are not faking it, it looks like good find!
Why bulb light up only at the bottom of jar?
Does it depends on amount of water?

Anyway, it is better than Ricks leds!

Can you do some more tests?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 27, 2019, 08:31:21 AM
I am shocked at the attitude of the admin of this forum but we all make mistakes so that should be forgiven as I think he has probably learned from this experience also.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Owner of forum does not care for members.
He cares for forum viewers.
He was hoping that Rick will bring him glory to the forum and number of clicks.

But Rick burned him also. And left him empty handed.

I hope he will learn who was really making his forum popular, if he menage to get back members he lost.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 27, 2019, 09:45:48 AM
He is just using the gate driver directly to drive the LC tank.

If the gate driver has Schmitt trigger on input, then is possible to use signal from coil as input to gate driver without need of timer.
But you can not control switching frequency. It depends on coil feedback. Is it the best frequency for that task? Hmm.

Without Schmitt trigger gate driver will pick up any oscillation and will switch randomly which will lead to its own burn out.
And gate driver has its limitations.
But, yes, you can power coil that way for a while but not for larger power needs.

Or you can use timers which has also schmitt trigger on input, like simpliest of all, 555, for the same purpose.

SG3525 has also input pin for timing, not sure if it has Schmitt trigger on it. Probably has. Without it it will react on any noise from outside.

TC4420 is resilient low side gate driver which can output 6A pulsed, I think, which is more than enough, giving output of 100mA or so, for that coil.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2019, 10:04:50 AM
Yes for you it is OU. That Video and your questions convince everyone why you are the big expert here in this forum.
What is the next? that you ask that the lighting on your yellowed laboratory is also OU?
You can't prove anything over the internet, remember? I guarantee if you build it right, it will work. Corollary: If it doesn't work... you didn't build it right. QED.

And it's my teeth that are yellowed, not my laboratory.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2019, 10:25:09 AM

Since you are new here you may not be aware that this has already been covered, including analysis of the actual current being driven into RF's transmitter coil, and indeed Our Friend, working in another forum, is already using coil feedback for autoresonating as you describe. Further, simple actual Solid State Tesla Coils have been constructed by some of this thread's workers using 555 > TC4420 or IXDD614, etc. > mosfet (or CRT horizontal output transistor, some can work pretty well) > low impedance primary > 1/4 wave helical resonator > elevated top capacity, using antenna feedback to Gate Driver,  to make full Tesla wireless power transmission systems. But there are safety considerations when going this route. HVRF burns are very painful and take a long time to heal, and sensitive test equipment must be protected, as the voltages produced can be two or even three orders of magnitude greater than what RF's system attains.
I think that is one reason why RF didn't get the reception he apparently wanted; most people who are actually building and testing have gone far beyond his presentations long ago. 

But your question is an important one. Is the autoresonating frequency the "best" frequency for the task?


What, exactly, is the "task", and how is it to be accomplished? And how can we tell when we have accomplished it? Lighting up a few LEDs at tabletop distances seems rather anticlimactic.

(The switching frequency of an autoresonator can still be controlled, within limits, by incorporating an inductor or capacitor that can be tuned in the tank current path.)

If the gate driver has Schmitt trigger on input, then is possible to use signal from coil as input to gate driver without need of timer.
But you can not control switching frequency. It depends on coil feedback. Is it the best frequency for that task? Hmm.

Without Schmitt trigger gate driver will pick up any oscillation and will switch randomly which will lead to its own burn out.
And gate driver has its limitations.
But, yes, you can power coil that way for a while but not for larger power needs.

Or you can use timers which has also schmitt trigger on input, like simpliest of all, 555, for the same purpose.

SG3525 has also input pin for timing, not sure if it has Schmitt trigger on it. Probably has. Without it it will react on any noise from outside.

TC4420 is resilient low side gate driver which can output 6A pulsed, I think, which is more than enough, giving output of 100mA or so, for that coil.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 27, 2019, 11:39:56 AM
Question: which is the "power density" from Mr.Friedrichs' coil conept ?
What is the cost per Watt gain,not calculating with 100US$ per coil but with 10 US$/1 US$  ?
Mr.Friedrich presents not an industrial solution, it is ART !

"Energy harvester" gives also ambiental energy collection and are actually relative "cheaper" than his "artefact" !
A FE device like solar/win/water/gravity converter has to be affordable,especially for the 3-4 billions lower income
population worldwide !

The first target for "electricity on demand" : 10 US$ cents per KWh

Second target: the U.S. B2B average KWh electricity price: 5,5 US$ cents

And  finally : 500 US$/€ per KW FE device which by 5% tax and ten years amortization  explores in continuum work each KWh appropriate private household standard electricity for 1 US$/€ cent. !

S o it is even important to develop the 1 eKWpeak household,included heating/cooling- light- kitchen appliances
Going in Extreme : 0,8 KWh daily electricity consume ( 800 Wh/ 24 day hours ~ Wattpeak ? )
https://mtbest.net/energy_efficiency.html (https://mtbest.net/energy_efficiency.html)

( actually target 1 and 2 are easy to release : from 5,5 to 1 cent per KWh - on demand- it is more complex to organize !)

500 US$ per FE device is a high price :                         https://www.jovoto.com/projects/300house/landing
300 US$ challenge " for the first social home" in comparison
The second great search : drinkable water on demand
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 27, 2019, 12:04:34 PM
 
But your question is an important one. Is the autoresonating frequency the "best" frequency for the task?

You got the point. Sometimes auto frequency does not mean that coil is in resonance.
It can be worse than some other controlled frequency.
Except for Mr. Rick. For him everything is resonance.

Even switching with the hand.

He said that he diacovered mosfets only some time ago and their speed.
But probably he does not know how to implement them, so he used only gate driver.
Before that he switched with bipolar, which he saw from Bedini.
But speed is important for him.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 27, 2019, 12:08:29 PM
You can't prove anything over the internet, remember? I guarantee if you build it right, it will work. Corollary: If it doesn't work... you didn't build it right. QED.

And it's my teeth that are yellowed, not my laboratory.

Dont be another Rick!
One was enough. Lets forget nightmare!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 27, 2019, 12:48:16 PM
Hi here is a trailer for JB's Lockridge device, watch it or ignore it, but was it OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AykzfzpmNLU

Has any one got a copy of DVD no 14 I can watch E-mail me?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on July 27, 2019, 02:14:13 PM
In autoresonant mode , frequency picked by coil and returned back to mosfet driver is the same frequency as the resonant frequency of tank circuit ? is it shifted in phase ? can we make it the same frequency andin phase with resonant frequency of tank circuit ?
Please experts - give us some tips in that direction. I'm quite sure that if the feedback is on the same frequency and phase and we can adjust it to trigger in some small period of resonant frequency cycle as a burst of one-polarity impulses then the gain would be visible.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 27, 2019, 03:27:02 PM
Resonance stadium:

emitter / coil a max. Voltage  min.= zero Amperage and receiver/ coil b min.= zero Voltage and max.Amperage and the vice-versa displacement

Lord Kelvin : spring/ condensator( capacitor) analogon

Charge/dis-charge/re-charge pump system
Electric charge by  "law of conservation of energy" conditionized e-charge storage system

But : there is also a magnetic charge and an ambiental charge ( air-gas f.e. and the Ozone production )
Ionizer, permanent magnet/electro magnet and the gas- kinetik theory
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadrosches_Gesetz (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadrosches_Gesetz)
https://www.leifiphysik.de/waermelehre/allgemeines-gasgesetz/grundwissen/gesetz-von-gay-lussac (https://www.leifiphysik.de/waermelehre/allgemeines-gasgesetz/grundwissen/gesetz-von-gay-lussac)
electricity is gas- based : elektronen-/ ionen- gas,actually better known as Plasma
Ergo important : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiedemann%E2%80%93Franz_law
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 27, 2019, 04:34:50 PM
In autoresonant mode , frequency picked by coil and returned back to mosfet driver is the same frequency as the resonant frequency of tank circuit ? is it shifted in phase ? can we make it the same frequency andin phase with resonant frequency of tank circuit ?
Please experts - give us some tips in that direction. I'm quite sure that if the feedback is on the same frequency and phase and we can adjust it to trigger in some small period of resonant frequency cycle as a burst of one-polarity impulses then the gain would be visible.

I am not the expert, but transformer does not have phase shift.
You have to take care of polarities. Secondary has reversed polarity. It looks like 180 phase shift but it isnt.
In reality I observed some small phase shift in some situations, nothing serious.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2019, 05:56:37 PM
Dont be another Rick!
One was enough. Lets forget nightmare!


I gather English isn't your first language. You write and understand it very well, but sarcasm and irony sometimes get lost in translation. I am as far from being "another Rick" as you can imagine. Please refer to my YouTube channel if you would like to learn more about me and my work.

For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQ5WnziKBA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQ5WnziKBA)



And I'll post a link to this one again, since it once more is relevant in several ways: first, you get a "demonstration" of a complete demonstration with measurements, schematic, closeup pic of the actual build and full instructions, in under 10 minutes, and second, it explains a bit about subharmonics and resonance and may help one decide whether or not resonance may be important in whatever "task" one might be attempting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChV7n0EY2h0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChV7n0EY2h0)
And it may help you understand who and what I am.


 8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2019, 06:02:01 PM
Hi here is a trailer for JB's Lockridge device, watch it or ignore it, but was it OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AykzfzpmNLU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AykzfzpmNLU)

Has any one got a copy of DVD no 14 I can watch E-mail me?
Well that's three minutes of my life that I won't ever get back.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2019, 06:29:20 PM
Here's a bit longer video that is a companion to the Subharmonics demo. In this one I demonstrate the CD4046BE Phase-Locked Loop chip in both the VCO and PLL modes, with scoposcopy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMQkCW5vZVc


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 27, 2019, 06:47:26 PM
Well that's three minutes of my life that I won't ever get back.
Hi Mr Tinsel K, Was it that good ?  ;D
I just couldn't stop laughing, there was this huge builds up and then it finished,   :-\
never mind some joker is bound to erase it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 27, 2019, 06:57:13 PM

I gather English isn't your first language. You write and understand it very well, but sarcasm and irony sometimes get lost in translation. I am as far from being "another Rick" as you can imagine. Please refer to my YouTube channel if you would like to learn more about me and my work.

For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQ5WnziKBA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQ5WnziKBA)
This is an interesting video  from the point of view that both legs  of the neon are lit up (ac) as you'r a clever
 guy with the amount you build, how would you build a similar device that produces negative only pulses ?

Regards Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 27, 2019, 10:09:28 PM

I gather English isn't your first language. You write and understand it very well, but sarcasm and irony sometimes get lost in translation. I am as far from being "another Rick" as you can imagine. Please refer to my YouTube channel if you would like to learn more about me and my work.

For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQ5WnziKBA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQ5WnziKBA)



And I'll post a link to this one again, since it once more is relevant in several ways: first, you get a "demonstration" of a complete demonstration with measurements, schematic, closeup pic of the actual build and full instructions, in under 10 minutes, and second, it explains a bit about subharmonics and resonance and may help one decide whether or not resonance may be important in whatever "task" one might be attempting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChV7n0EY2h0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChV7n0EY2h0)
And it may help you understand who and what I am.


 8)

You got me wrong! I watched all your videos before.
You have sharp mind and sometimes sharp, almost rude answers.
Loose a little bit, dont behaive like Rick. That is what I ment. Nothing more.
If you understand my post as sarcasm, my apology.
I see in you researcher, so sarcasm has no place in my posts to you! Sorry.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2019, 10:33:13 PM
This is an interesting video  from the point of view that both legs  of the neon are lit up (ac) as you'r a clever
 guy with the amount you build, how would you build a similar device that produces negative only pulses ?

Regards Raymondo
Ah, but they are not both lit at the same instant!   ;)

A high voltage, high frequency rectifier? Maybe even synchronous rectification using more complicated circuitry. Simple DC biasing might be the best way, depending on whom you are trying to troll.

But it is my experience that if one pulses something negatively, somewhere something else must pulse positively if nothing is to be wasted. Sure, one may contrive various clever schemes to drain off the positive pulses to ground, or use them to charge a battery while using the negative pulses to run a motor (as I show in the MHOP video series, the Better-Than-Bedini (tm TKLabs) battery charger/pulse motor).

But is it OU?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2019, 10:34:12 PM
You got me wrong! I watched all your videos before.
You have sharp mind and sometimes sharp, almost rude answers.
Loose a little bit, dont behaive like Rick. That is what I ment. Nothing more.
If you understand my post as sarcasm, my apology.
I see in you researcher, so sarcasm has no place in my posts to you! Sorry.
OK mate, no worries, we are cool!   

(If I seem rude at times... it is only because I mean to be.)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 27, 2019, 10:44:16 PM
OK mate, no worries, we are cool!   

(If I seem rude at times... it is only because I mean to be.)

I been watching your progress with interest.
You did not answer to my post about your coil in water video?
I noticed that bulb light up at bottom of jar.

I presume it is not real, but I am not sure.
Was it your joke about Rick or real thing?
Is it something under table?
I am just curious! Because i trust your videos.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 28, 2019, 12:31:23 AM
Ah, but they are not both lit at the same instant!   ;)

A high voltage, high frequency rectifier? Maybe even synchronous rectification using more complicated circuitry. Simple DC biasing might be the best way, depending on whom you are trying to troll.

But it is my experience that if one pulses something negatively, somewhere something else must pulse positively if nothing is to be wasted. Sure, one may contrive various clever schemes to drain off the positive pulses to ground, or use them to charge a battery while using the negative pulses to run a motor (as I show in the MHOP video series, the Better-Than-Bedini (tm TKLabs) battery charger/pulse motor).

But is it OU?
I was thinking in terms of why JBs youtube videos use negative high voltage to drive tesla coils
and then the pointer or video gets deleted this also applies to Master IVOs videos witch to my knowledge are still viewable and the main difference being i can think of is electron flow direction as opposed to holes.  ::)

There might be another school of thought here and that is impulsing the low turn impulse winding with such a narrow negative going pulse width with out using a spark gap device as one guys suggested using a Russian titanium hydrogen excited thyratron but if negative energy is required to earthy side thyratrons polarity would need reversing, oh such fun ;D ;D 

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2019, 12:57:09 AM
I been watching your progress with interest.
You did not answer to my post about your coil in water video?
I noticed that bulb light up at bottom of jar.

I presume it is not real, but I am not sure.
Was it your joke about Rick or real thing?
Is it something under table?
I am just curious! Because i trust your videos.

Thanks!
Hint: If my video is in the "alt.snakeoil" category you can be sure that all is not as it seems.    ;)
In this case you may recognize the wireless receiver from other videos where I demonstrate and explain. So even though it is not evident in the video, you could probably bet that a wireless power transmitter is somewhere nearby. Running under water is no trick, even though the water is  normally a short circuit, at high frequencies it has a high impedance so does not affect the lighting of the bulb. The behaviour of the bulb, brightening and dimming, is also a big clue.

Don't worry, if one of my videos isn't in "alt.snakeoil", it is totally legitimate.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2019, 12:59:58 AM
I was thinking in terms of why JBs youtube videos use negative high voltage to drive tesla coils
and then the pointer or video gets deleted this also applies to Master IVOs videos witch to my knowledge are still viewable and the main difference being i can think of is electron flow direction as opposed to holes.  ::)

There might be another school of thought here and that is impulsing the low turn impulse winding with such a narrow negative going pulse width with out using a spark gap device as one guys suggested using a Russian titanium hydrogen excited thyratron but if negative energy is required to earthy side thyratrons polarity would need reversing, oh such fun ;D ;D 

Raymondo
OK... Maybe Wesley could try his Krytron....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 28, 2019, 02:05:42 AM
T K  does Bedini:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbTy8EVaGI[/size]


R F does  Bedini: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXuEeLUMAug&feature=youtu.be


You decide...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on July 28, 2019, 04:19:04 AM
T K  does Bedini:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbTy8EVaGI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbTy8EVaGI)[/size]


R F does  Bedini: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXuEeLUMAug&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXuEeLUMAug&feature=youtu.be)


You decide...
What's your point?


Even if the equipment in Rick's video was his own (which it isn't), and he was in his own lab (which he isn't), so what?


Again, what is your point? It seems as though your only interest here is to discredit anyone who does not consider Rick to be their hero, as you apparently do.


Surely you're not trying to compare TK's and Rick's knowledge and abilities in these realms? If you are, that's laughable.


Rather than trying to discredit others for their fine work, I would suggest you present your own work that supports your hero. Otherwise, knock off the nonsense please.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 28, 2019, 05:17:28 AM
What is the point is the right question, just where are we now because I am a little confused. The thread started out to confirm or deny claims of overunity and it started with the Bedini motor. Years ago I started making one but gave up because of the mythbusters and others saying it was a hoax. Then I got excited again when I saw this thread might show me the proof I was looking for on this subject instead of just going by what others had said (mythbusters). Now I am not an idiot I do understand that there is a conservation of energy and I do understand power factor calculations and the difference of real power and aparent power as an electrician I have had to use those formulas but that was years ago, however I am not into the electronics like most here are so I wasn't to interested in the rf part of where this thread went but what about the Bedini motor and batteries. Did the motor charge batteries better than conventional methods and did the motor rejuvenate sulfated batteries, even if the motor only improves efficiency and desulfates a bad battery I would be interested in continuing this project I have started collecting parts for but after 109 pages I still don't know. Maybe I am an idiot, am I missing something or was this proven not to work, I know we started out with some good replications from Tinman and Grummage but then it moved to the rf portion and I didn't really get my answers from those replications on the battery charging part. I haven't wasted any money so far I am just collecting parts for a build but before I do spend money I thought someone might have a reply that would convince me one way or another thanks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2019, 05:37:33 AM
T K  does Bedini:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbTy8EVaGI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbTy8EVaGI)[/size]


R F does  Bedini: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXuEeLUMAug&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXuEeLUMAug&feature=youtu.be)


You decide...
That's pretty hilarious all right. Who paid for all that stuff? In the long run it was Bedini's customers, right? And did they get what they paid for? Even Rick will probably agree that they did not.


But I have a whole playlist on the MHOP development, that shows and explains some of its interesting features and how some problems were identified and solved. It ends with the Rotorless MHOP, no moving parts, the No Rotor Motor (except the electrons) .

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8F1PebS_EX7AX2aA_ZZtb9 (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8F1PebS_EX7AX2aA_ZZtb9)

And if you are impressed with battery charging pulse motors, I have an Orbette video where I demonstrate the Orbette running on a single AAA battery (that it charged previously) and charging a C battery at the same time.

That is right, the motor is running on a small battery that it charged itself in a previous run, and is charging a larger battery at the same time. So all the energy involved in that almost-closed loop came out of the Orbette itself. Right?

But is it OU? 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 28, 2019, 06:03:53 AM
Hi TinselKoala

I an answered some of my questions by watching your videos but what I sill have for a question is a pulse motor a viable project, will it improve efficiency or rejuvenate a sulfated battery, I guess my question is did you see any gain even if it wasn't overunity thanks.

Let me rephrase the question, if I were a homeowner with solar and a bank of batteries would I see better efficiency if I added a second set of batteries with a pulse motor in between then switching them back and forth or is the investment not worth it thanks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2019, 08:02:08 AM
Well, RF and Bedini before him have made such claims and many people have used or are using systems like that. Some people have also reported that their batteries got ruined after a while and can't be recovered.

I can't say for sure, but I think if you keep your batteries in good condition by using a proper charge controller, any gains you might see from using a second set of batteries and a pulse motor in between are probably too small to be worthwhile if they exist at all, and certainly aren't going to be OverUnity.


But don't let my opinion keep you from running your own experiments.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 28, 2019, 08:19:35 AM
Thanks for the reply, I think I will continue to play just I am not going to spend a lot of money on it at this time I am just going to continue acquiring parts for it from scrap such as a floor scrubber I got some parts off this week that way if I don't see gains at least I won't have spent a bunch of money it thanks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Grumage on July 28, 2019, 12:37:04 PM
Thanks for the reply, I think I will continue to play just I am not going to spend a lot of money on it at this time I am just going to continue acquiring parts for it from scrap such as a floor scrubber I got some parts off this week that way if I don't see gains at least I won't have spent a bunch of money it thanks.

Hi overcurrent.

I'm pretty sure most of the older hands here cut their teeth on " Bedini " tech.

One member, currently under MODERATION, Hoppy carried out exhaustive battery analysis over a very long period of time, he'd be the one to help answer your question.

I built several motors over the years, one ran for around 3 months, single battery and mechanical commutation with no " apparent " loss. Very efficient but otherwise, useless, as no extra energy could be had without upsetting the fine balance.

Not wishing to deter you in your endeavours, tinkering and a " hands on " approach is a great way to learn about this fascinating subject. Don't forget that there's many here that have already " beaten " this path, quite thoroughly, don't be afraid to ask questions.

Definitely, " Solar " is a good investment, I've just passed the 0.9 MWh in three months!!

Cheers Graham.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 28, 2019, 02:52:21 PM
Hint: If my video is in the "alt.snakeoil" category you can be sure that all is not as it seems.    ;)
In this case you may recognize the wireless receiver from other videos where I demonstrate and explain. So even though it is not evident in the video, you could probably bet that a wireless power transmitter is somewhere nearby. Running under water is no trick, even though the water is  normally a short circuit, at high frequencies it has a high impedance so does not affect the lighting of the bulb. The behaviour of the bulb, brightening and dimming, is also a big clue.

Don't worry, if one of my videos isn't in "alt.snakeoil", it is totally legitimate.

No other word than Thanks!

I like your work! And passion towards it!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 28, 2019, 03:16:00 PM
still under moderation Huh ?
Gear and others reading here .re: Mr.Koala's movies ,
at all times he invites scrutiny and provides documentation to expedite
the scrutiny of his measurement protocol and results.[itsu works this way too and others here]          There are other times its just for fun and not about any particular Query [or claim] but In my opinion always towards a better understanding of what "might" be possible....as of this writing ...I have never read or seen similar from RF or his mentor..or should I write
Begging scrutiny of a well documented presentation for an energy Audit
Mr.Koala is a Metrologist .and Practices Brutal honesty [the scientific method with 100 % transparency... so none can dispute unless they too show there results and explain ....not just one mans opinion. Chet K .PS I apologize for the bunched up text and lack of sentence structure in my posts at times ...this forum seems to smoosh and rearrange all my text together unless I use another method to post here. I attribute this to Hackers who have boasted here before ,and their stance against open source .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 28, 2019, 03:30:13 PM
Hi overcurrent.

I'm pretty sure most of the older hands here cut their teeth on " Bedini " tech.

One member, currently under MODERATION, Hoppy carried out exhaustive battery analysis over a very long period of time, he'd be the one to help answer your question.

I built several motors over the years, one ran for around 3 months, single battery and mechanical commutation with no " apparent " loss. Very efficient but otherwise, useless, as no extra energy could be had without upsetting the fine balance.

Not wishing to deter you in your endeavours, tinkering and a " hands on " approach is a great way to learn about this fascinating subject. Don't forget that there's many here that have already " beaten " this path, quite thoroughly, don't be afraid to ask questions.

Definitely, " Solar " is a good investment, I've just passed the 0.9 MWh in three months!!

Cheers Graham.
0,9 MWh  ::) : 20 sqm solarpanels with 10% average conversion efficiency  ?
900 KWh / 30,5 days( month) /3(months period) / 0,5 KWh ( daily max.  per sqm by 10% eff.) ~ 20 sqm
actual solar panels industrial price - fob Ningbo factory, in bulk- : 480 US$ for 20 x 133 Wp  8)


I spoke 3 weeks before with an engineer( Ex- Phillips development center employee in Liverpool and later Paris;with many international publications  ,working actually  as docent/Prof
for the Uni Braga) ) about silicon solar panels.

He said this technology will become " dead" ! ( I do not think so, disagree!)
 In development " graphene thermionic cells", calculated R.O.I. time : 3 years  ;) ( okay: 60% eff.  :) )

The Dr.Reichelt( G.D.R. development)  graphit heat-electric cell ( from 1982 )with 80% conversion eff. was him not unknown.
European research cluster : University Aveiro/ PT.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 28, 2019, 03:54:11 PM
Hi IancaIv

I am off topic here but I must ask seeings I just did a project investigation recently on a solar project. The proposal I got from a few different installer companies was 1.1 million dollars with a 300,000.00 dollar rebate and it came to a ROI of 13 years which you can imagine it didn't management long to shoot that proposal down because they are looking for a three year payback maybe 5 if it looks good in the publics eye so is there a website where I can keep an eye on this technology I would definitely look into it with that kind of payback thanks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 28, 2019, 03:54:49 PM
LancalV
 Nobody throws away a perfectly good horse .
 And that will probably make all the other panels  out there much less expensive to obtain and still very useful .
Here I must add !!


 A few faces may be new here to some members .
Poynt and Vortex 1 (ion at other forums)


These fellows and others here, have drastically  moved the bar up for the talent in this
 Open source venue.
Spending tremendous amounts of time teaching and explaining how to take proper measurements to get good results and also how to present your findings so as to be understood by the largest group of readers.
TinselKoala having dedicated tons of time and effort making teaching videos
And they hunt to for this elusive beast ...which some claim to have cornered but will not share
 Open source ,
and yes they are very suspicious knowing all the Ways errors can be made ...unknown attachments to mains or grid voltage ..Unknown feedback loops  from equipment ...actually supplying the energy unbeknownst to the claimant ...Or Ground loops as a source to main grid voltage or couple to mains voltage and create scenarios where the energy is harvested and unknown methods ?? capacitive coupling ???
or other sources of energy which have nothing to do with OU .


 Tinsel  has shown many times all the ways you can fool people if you were an unscrupulous individual or even at times persons unaware innocent of their measurement error
 If open sourced... those results would be revealed as the  measurements Error they are ( only referring to errors made unaware here ) .
And make the experimenter the wiser and the community too
and make us all better at this task ,the hunt for Free energy.
 
Respectfully
Chet
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 28, 2019, 04:01:03 PM
(Upps, Chet,,Pardon moi! )
overcurrent , you used ! the "solar technology" barrier : INSTALLER
The common investor has under this condition to pay up to 3-5 US$ per Wp "installed" !
Between- fob factory- and - installed on tect- are the 900% margins !
Beside China :
look for solar cell producer prices from Turkey( the Lira decrease is the international buyer the advantage)
And no,it is not tread theme off-topic : in the Reichelt paper there is a given example for an OU concept !
Dr. Helmut Reichelt was not a " nobody" , he was the east - german estatal " energetic institute" administration director !

And I wrote : the 3 years R.O.I.  "graphene thermionic cell " is in DEVELOPMENT, this means that the market entry will be soonest in 2-5 years  !

Question : https://www.google.com/search?q=alvin+marks+solar+cell&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=alvin+marks+solar+cell&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)
his 1 US$/sqm ( 1984 production costs calculation for double network cell ,1/2 year life-time minimum)

75% eff.  each layer overlapped : 56,25% average efficiency per sqm area

Selling each sqm at the beginning for 10 US$ and later decreasing prices would mean that we would have been in the 90' in the 3 US$ cents/ KWh range !
3 cents/KWh  before or wthout estatal subsidiaries !
why no company did followed his development and brought cheap solar/ photonic conversion devices to market ?1984 + 20 years granted patent saved time : since 2004 there is not an argument to use legally and fee-free this technology !
There is not really an interest for falling energy prices and autonomous living !
As "Project developper" with fast R.O.I. intention probably of interest :
https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=11175
https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=12841
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 28, 2019, 06:49:02 PM
Hi lancanaIV

Thanks for the info you have given me a lot to look into however it is Sunday and I have had too many beers at the moment to be serious I did like the video thanks and cheers have a good day thanks.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 28, 2019, 07:07:31 PM
Cheers !  ;) Salute, Skol, Prosit,......

The generation next in energy conversion devices : rectenna/ nantenna
http://www.graphene-nownano.manchester.ac.uk/our-research/examples-of-current-projects/energy-and-plasmonic-applications/graphene-nanodevices-for-energy-harvesting/ (http://www.graphene-nownano.manchester.ac.uk/our-research/examples-of-current-projects/energy-and-plasmonic-applications/graphene-nanodevices-for-energy-harvesting/)
The Reichelt cell was 1982 the first THz- resonator ( electrothermic/ thermoelectric)  device. !

Many vids theme related :
https://www.google.com/search?q=YouTube+rectenna&client=firefox-b-m&oq=YouTube+rectenna&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3...3464.12544.0.13386.37.23.0.1.1.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..34.mobile-heirloom-serp..36.1.60.DoRoG4Ivtyk (https://www.google.com/search?q=YouTube+rectenna&client=firefox-b-m&oq=YouTube+rectenna&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3...3464.12544.0.13386.37.23.0.1.1.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..34.mobile-heirloom-serp..36.1.60.DoRoG4Ivtyk)
f. e. : https://genesisnanotech.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/solar-cells-will-be-made-obsolete-by-3d-rectennas-aiming-at-40-to-90-efficiency/
                1/10 the cost of conventional solar cells, target : 40% broad/90% specific wave energy conversion
                  2019 Georgia Tech efficiency level?

Does Prof. Ikeda actually work in his 2011 development and improves liability :
https://www.greenoptimistic.com/green-ferrite-solar-cell-japan-20110920/
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 28, 2019, 07:08:37 PM
What's your point?


Even if the equipment in Rick's video was his own (which it isn't), and he was in his own lab (which he isn't), so what?


Again, what is your point? It seems as though your only interest here is to discredit anyone who does not consider Rick to be their hero, as you apparently do.


Surely you're not trying to compare TK's and Rick's knowledge and abilities in these realms? If you are, that's laughable.


Rather than trying to discredit others for their fine work, I would suggest you present your own work that supports your hero. Otherwise, knock off the nonsense please.
He is not my hero.  I understand his open sourcing information - it has been very helpful to me and I suspect to others who do not wish to get bogged down in the sarcasm and potential vitriol from those who disagree with comments on this forum.
As for who's equipment it was - I do not know. I suspect it was in Rick's lab, but it's a guess.  It does have Rick's label on the equipment.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 28, 2019, 07:30:08 PM
AKing someday I hope he open sources information that leads to a heretofore
unknown anomaly which withstands all scrutiny and can bring Stefan's mission statement here to fruition .
to help all around the globe ,not just one lab or lifestyle.
Chet K
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 28, 2019, 07:36:27 PM
Overunity-Motivation and the limit :

https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-illustration/donkey-running-after-carrot-518056597
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2019, 07:59:56 PM
(snip)
 Tinsel  has shown many times all the ways you can fool people if you were an unscrupulous individual or even at times persons unaware innocent of their measurement error
 (snip)
Respectfully
Chet
Thanks for the flowers. But... not nearly "all" the ways. Just the ones I know about, have fallen for myself, or can dream up. One thing I do know for sure: someone will always find a new way to fool, or try to fool, someone else for money or fame.

One important thing I have noticed over the years as I've examined various electronic OU claims. Many of them have turned out to be fairly good wireless power _receivers_. I have a number of wireless power transmission systems in my lab, among them the turnkey "Black Box" which is an EM system, quite safe and not interacting with the environment except for powering more-or-less tuned receivers. I always test circuits claimed to be "OU" in some way by exposing them to the emanations of the Black Box. The "Lari-Man Objekt 13" is one such example. It operates perfectly well when near the BB, with no other power source. Ditto some of the Akula and Ruslan circuits. Especially if you gut the electrolytic capacitors and stuff button cell batteries in the cases!
I also have E-field wireless power systems and hybrid RF systems, but these are more dangerous because just about anything in the environment can become a receiver. With sufficient power,  dielectrics like window glass or wallboard can accumulate shockingly large charge patches, conductors like metal shelves start spraying corona, dogs run and hide, et cetera.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: overcurrent on July 28, 2019, 08:13:28 PM
Well I would think dogs would run can you imagine the charge they could build up in that fur coat. All right that is my last post today too many beer have a good one.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 28, 2019, 08:34:35 PM
AKing someday I hope he open sources information that leads to a heretofore
unknown anomaly which withstands all scrutiny and can bring Stefan's mission statement here to fruition .
to help all around the globe ,not just one lab or lifestyle.
Chet K
But he has open sourced everything.  You just have to sit through his videos.  What we could do with is someone to liase with Rick and Hong Kong to produce those multi coilers 10 times cheaper along with his very effective battery rejuvenators. I think that would make a difference.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 28, 2019, 08:46:57 PM
Hi overcurrent.

I'm pretty sure most of the older hands here cut their teeth on " Bedini " tech.

One member, currently under MODERATION, Hoppy carried out exhaustive battery analysis over a very long period of time, he'd be the one to help answer your question.

I built several motors over the years, one ran for around 3 months, single battery and mechanical commutation with no " apparent " loss. Very efficient but otherwise, useless, as no extra energy could be had without upsetting the fine balance.

Not wishing to deter you in your endeavours, tinkering and a " hands on " approach is a great way to learn about this fascinating subject. Don't forget that there's many here that have already " beaten " this path, quite thoroughly, don't be afraid to ask questions.

Definitely, " Solar " is a good investment, I've just passed the 0.9 MWh in three months!!

Cheers Graham.

Yes, but what Bedini did not tell us (which Rick outed) is that you could have charged several batteries and still ran your motor for three months. That is what he did not want us to know so he had something up his sleeve which he could sell later.
In an oscillatory set up the batteries' ions would potentialize  by voltage only and would self charge.  That is why the ions would keep charging the batteries after switch off. This means that your battery woud increase in voltage after switching off the charging circuit  - which is the opposite of conventional charging.  Also your batteries are charged cold and even colder than ambient in some circumstances.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 28, 2019, 08:55:08 PM
a.king21 :
trusting or not is the question !?

Heater : aequivalent C.O.P. 10
DC electric heater source

   the artificial photon solar cell chamber ,photons emitted by energy saving lamps
Lamps electric source :   

simple generator with coupling Li Yng Tian multi-DC motor transmission

DC motor electricity source :   Henry Trilles power amplifier, first 84 Watt output

Calculated energy cascade C.O.P.:
                      10 ( heater)  x 7,8 ( photo-electric chamber)x 10( mo-gen) x 40 ( Trilles amplifier)
                   ~ C.O.P. 31200 ( thirthy one thousand and two hundred times input/ output ratio)
Mr.Friedensreich is not the only experimenting  !

And the Trilles amplifier energy source :stationary f.e. https://web.archive.org/web/20060206021549/http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20060206021549/http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/)  Main Menue : Earth energy

Portable : Frank Marhanka battery-cell

The artificial solar chamber : spanish patent office approved and granted
The Li Yng Tyan transmission : U.S. patent office approved and granted
The Trilles power amplifier : french patent office approved and granted

2019 "open source" = fee-/licence free technology
"Stupid= uncommon" ideas ,technical and physical accepted by the patent office peers

But because the "artifial solar chamber" by itself can be cascated ,each stage factor 7,8, from 31200 we can extrapolite the C.O.P. factor theoretically " endless" !
This is actually the global " Technischer Standart"  !
German phonetics: Ai shing thad wif a 31200 teimes Faktor it will bee reallie esilly to ged an " clodet batterie zykle", so thad it kan bi approwet dte " closed thermodynamic cycle".( old german, before Duden-Era)
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 28, 2019, 11:39:14 PM
LancaIV quote  ...2019 "open source" = fee-/licence free technology..end quote...
Where is this and at what cost is free? [fine print ??]
 we would love endless extrapolations of OU 
Chet
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 28, 2019, 11:47:30 PM
admittere( old latin)  : the admittance is free;  no licence and financial compensation for reproduction needed
The "artificial solar light chamber,  ES by Baquero Menendez but based by the german developper Paul Marzahn and his base by Bernd Koehler
LI Yng Tian transmission concept based by an US american pioneer  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_Wood (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_Wood)

Triilles amplifier: " cold= resistance-less/free electricity conduction"; using inrush current jump
extreme "cold" electricity : superconduction for high Ampere- conduction and/or storage


Btw:  a light electric vehicle ( Sinclairs C5)with Li Yng drive and Trilles amplifier :
                 world record in efficiency 100 Km with 3 Wh consume( flat road and excluded heating/ cooling ::) )

The Li Yng Tian " hint/drawback/ disadvantage": 13000+ RPM cheap toy motors
this means only 3750 hours bearings work-life ( by 10 Mio.  RPM bearings,  here : bufo. ru coating advice  )3750 hours are for e-vehicles sufficient( 2 hours per day calculation) , not as heat pump drive with 3000 hours and more movement per annum

The artificial light chamber
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20100615&CC=ES&NR=2341161A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20100615&CC=ES&NR=2341161A1&KC=A1#)

The transmission:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19951107&CC=US&NR=5463914A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19951107&CC=US&NR=5463914A&KC=A#)

The power amplifier:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=8&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940318&CC=FR&NR=2695768A3&KC=A3# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=8&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940318&CC=FR&NR=2695768A3&KC=A3#)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 29, 2019, 12:41:14 AM
Simple free energy mistakes.
1 Getting distracted by bots which lead you away from truth.
2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxzepmaj0yk&feature=youtu.be



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 29, 2019, 12:56:56 AM
But he has open sourced everything.  You just have to sit through his videos.  What we could do with is someone to liase with Rick and Hong Kong to produce those multi coilers 10 times cheaper along with his very effective battery rejuvenators. I think that would make a difference.
What is the exact make and model of the LED bulbs RF used in the famous photo? Do they, or do they not, contain the MAX16820 high brightness , dimmable LED controller chip?

Until we have this information, "open sourced everything" is just another misrepresentation.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 29, 2019, 01:00:17 AM
Simple free energy mistakes.
1 Getting distracted by bots which lead you away from truth.
2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxzepmaj0yk&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxzepmaj0yk&feature=youtu.be)
What, only an _hour_ long video from RF? He's slipping, I expected two hours at least. Can't you just clip out the two or three minutes where he might actually be saying something significant? I seriously have better things to do with my hours than watching Rick's videos. (And so do you, I'll wager.) He really isn't a very entertaining or competent lecturer, and that has nothing to do with his mastery or non-mastery of the subject matter.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 29, 2019, 01:01:53 AM
a..king: neither I nor you can use freely physical terms :
"free energy" : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy)
           The expression is fully defined  !
"Overunity" is a work process( ambiental joule/ caloric dynamic cycle) definition,  there is not physically defined a power overunity. !

Energy= Anergy + Exergy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy)
https://wikidiff.com/anergy/exergy
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 29, 2019, 01:04:42 AM
Yes, but what Bedini did not tell us (which Rick outed) is that you could have charged several batteries and still ran your motor for three months. That is what he did not want us to know so he had something up his sleeve which he could sell later.
In an oscillatory set up the batteries' ions would potentialize  by voltage only and would self charge.  That is why the ions would keep charging the batteries after switch off. This means that your battery woud increase in voltage after switching off the charging circuit  - which is the opposite of conventional charging.  Also your batteries are charged cold and even colder than ambient in some circumstances.
Feel free to demonstrate. Please don't point to some old video by someone else. Make your own demonstration that illustrates the truth of your claims.

Until you do so, your claims in the above quote have exactly the same credibility as my herd of invisible pink unicorns. I'd be glad to show them to you... but they are invisible, silly. And nothing can be proven over the internet, right, so wild claims can just be made without even trying to make a demonstration. Excuse me, I've got to go feed my unicorns now. I'd make a video... but they are _invisible_, silly.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 29, 2019, 02:02:31 AM
AKing
Well
It is actually an open invitation here
 there are plenty here who are currious and would help.
Chet




Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 29, 2019, 03:24:22 AM
AKing
Well
It is actually an open invitation here
 there are plenty here who are currious and would help.
Chet
I make no overunity claims, so there is nothing to discuss..  I am merely pointing out certain matters which are worthy of investigation and have potential for those willing to experiment and add something positive.
When I replicate Kapanadze's aquarium 2 then I will let you know. Until then it is simply a quest to keep an open mind and do some experiments.
Being negative gets us nowhere. May as well get a second job and pay for our energy needs that way.
And anyway my unicorns are hungry and they take some feeding.  Damned expensive those unicorns.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 29, 2019, 04:32:06 AM

Rick made an interesting claim: Resonance is a gain. In a series resonance circuit the input amperage remains the same as the circulating current in  the resonant coil. At the same time the voltage inside the resonant coil goes higher up to 144 times. So a simple V x A = watts indicates OU of course.
So my question to myself was," What experiment can I devise to attempt to prove the claim" ( Notice I am being positive folks).

What experiment can you think of??

Well here it is:

I used the principle of oscillating current  as promulgated by Benitez.

So I attached one leg of the ac side of a bridge rectifier to the high voltage side of RICK's TX  coil and the other leg to earth ground.  Then I attached the positive and negative sides to a 12 volt 7 amp hour battery and it charged very nicely.  I do not have the correct measuring skills to see if there is a gain - but to those interested I enclose a pic and encourage you to do the experiment.
It is 3 am and time for shut eye,  I may develop the measuring skills tomorrow when i have time to think about it.
Oh and I was able to keep the device in resonance as I extracted real power out of it.
I make no apologies for the size of the pic as you need the details.
And it still lit up the RX without diminution........


Meanwhile those unicorns.....
------------------------
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 29, 2019, 10:52:26 AM
a.king,here lecture ,I give special attention to [0012] "...... undesired(desired !)......" and [0024] "resonance" ?!
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=TW&NR=200727310A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20070716&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=TW&NR=200727310A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20070716&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)

and here ( one time more) :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5264988A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19931123&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5264988A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19931123&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
60 Watt nominal lamp : 130 Volt x 200 Amperes "cold energy"
  26000 VpiApi / 60 Watt : 433 times the nominal value = "EMP stroke power"
capacitor: stroke power re-/charge pumping process device
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 29, 2019, 12:13:33 PM
I think a good example of the huge power that the Rick Friedrich circuit delivers is this video:

https://youtu.be/6he58A5xTIQ?t=1562


at around 30 minutes in it, where several high power LED bulbs are lighted up

and the voltage from the batteries did not change during the whole demonstration..


So this is pretty exiting and my friend confirms it in his replication.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 29, 2019, 01:36:09 PM
a.king,here lecture ,I give special attention to [0012] "...... undesired(desired !)......" and [0024] "resonance" ?!
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=TW&NR=200727310A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20070716&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=TW&NR=200727310A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20070716&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)

and here ( one time more) :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5264988A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19931123&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5264988A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19931123&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
60 Watt nominal lamp : 130 Volt x 200 Amperes "cold energy"
  26000 VpiApi / 60 Watt : 433 times the nominal value = "EMP stroke power"
capacitor: stroke power re-/charge pumping process device
Thanks Stefan and yes i did watch the 'clip' but found it difficult to concentrate getting much information with all the back ground and recording noise, perhaps others will collect more, hopefully to share.

One point of interest was the 'host guy in the lense focus mentioned 'negative energy' and put the LED lamp into a beaker of cold water, what most of us want to know is how exactly is 'cold' electricity made ??? and what is it??
this information always appears to be avoided or hidden can some one who knows please explain what it actually is ??

regards   Raymondo.

PS the editor appears to have a problem with CR and LF it appears to mix them up witch is annoying and a never ending circle trying to compensate for :) :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 29, 2019, 02:30:58 PM
"cold energy( here not meaning " cold electricity")" is normally "radiant energy" ( specially IR/UR temperature-free emission during the transmission) but stimulating this radiation receiving mass !
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Radiant_energy
( tools also L. A. S. E. R and M. A. S. E. R.  )

heat/mass relationship : "... It is not generally recognized.... "
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=6259347B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20010710&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=6259347B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20010710&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)

Also important for permanent magnet- free motors and generators !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 29, 2019, 04:49:12 PM
Thanks Stefan,
As you may remember me contacting you in Germany, we first started showing that in Hamburg Germany 5 years ago. That particular setup was used for several months prior to power over 1000W of lights in his shop and office in Friedrichshafen while the input remained the same. While the specific parts are not disclosed I have shared the basic level of doing this as well as pointed in the direction of the Tesla one wire teaching to show people the several options of doing this advanced process (which I have called the third stage of the Loving Paths teaching). I will be presenting this on the new Free Energy website over this summer (there is a lot of work to uploading everything and using the right words).

As for the criticisms about the audio of the video. This video was never intended to be shown to the public. I usually video my meetings for personal reasons and rarely show others what goes on there. But after 4 years I decided to show this because people demanded to see something like this here. There is nothing I can do about the audio because this was not presented for video. Many of the details were shared previously in the meeting in an organized presentation. The purpose was to show that the box needed the motor energizer to make this happen. They were tuned together in resonance just like Tesla's one wire system perfectly phased. The basic (easy) level of this doesn't do it in resonance or with correct phasing, and yet the output can still be multiply to some degree.

Rick

I think a good example of the huge power that the Rick Friedrich circuit delivers is this video:

https://youtu.be/6he58A5xTIQ?t=1562


at around 30 minutes in it, where several high power LED bulbs are lighted up

and the voltage from the batteries did not change during the whole demonstration..


So this is pretty exiting and my friend confirms it in his replication.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 29, 2019, 06:05:46 PM
Resonance is a gain. In a series resonance circuit the input amperage remains the same as the circulating current in the resonant coil. At the same time the voltage inside the resonant coil goes higher up to 144 times. So a simple V x A = watts indicates OU of course.

Hi a.king. Increases of voltage and current in resonant circuits is not an indication of an
increase in available output power. The current and voltage in resonant circuits are out of phase,
so it is not real power. So, it is completely incorrect to measure volts and amps in a resonant circuit
and try to equate that to real power. Electronics 101.

The only way to evaluate the performance of any circuit is to compare average output power (being consumed by a real load)
to average input power.  When you place a real load at the output of a resonant circuit, the voltage in the resonant circuit
will start to drop, and the phase angle between the current and voltage waveforms will begin to shift.
In AC circuits, the phase angle between the voltage and current must always be taken account when
making measurements. 

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 29, 2019, 06:23:17 PM
Is the issue here [besides A King recent efforts ]
that the Rick systems place a load.. in phase out of phase .. {are using Joules }..and this Load is not reflected in the battery ?

1000 watt load mentioned above ?..yes Time[how long]would be good to know ?actually plenty that would be good to know...a 1000 watt load on a AAA battery for a few hours would be convincing
just a statement towards the info not provided and the nature of the problem.
Sigh
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 29, 2019, 06:26:16 PM
I think a good example of the huge power that the Rick Friedrich circuit delivers is this video:
https://youtu.be/6he58A5xTIQ?t=1562
at around 30 minutes in it, where several high power LED bulbs are lighted up
and the voltage from the batteries did not change during the whole demonstration..
So this is pretty exiting and my friend confirms it in his replication.
Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan.
A couple of points:

It is not the 'power rating' that may be stamped on any LED light that matters.
It is the actual power being consumed by the LED light that matters. LED Lights
can consume a relatively small amount of power and appear quite bright, as I demonstrated
earlier in this thread. This tends to fool people because people are used to the idea that bulbs that
glow brightly must be consuming a fair bit of power. LED bulbs are much more efficient than
incandescent bulbs by a considerable amount.

A battery's voltage can remain relatively constant while under load, and how long the battery's
voltage remains quite level depends on how much current is being drawn from the battery
and what percentage that current draw is to the battery's Amp-hour rating. See the attached
battery discharge curves graph for lead acid batteries, as an example.
If the current being drawn from a battery is a fair bit below the battery's C value, then the battery
could hold at a fairly stable voltage while under discharge for even an hour or longer.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 29, 2019, 07:50:58 PM
I agree with Void.

It is very strange method which Rick developed to measure power only by looking at battery voltage.
I saw that Rick has scope.
Rick, buy a cheap current probe and measure math of both bateries and leds.
And try heater instead leds.
That will be easier than 100+ pages of convincing people in OU.

Otherwise I can borrow you crystal ball or Tarot cards for measuring real power.
If you hate so much voltage+current probe+math on your scope.

No offence!

Dont answer to this post, please!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 29, 2019, 07:52:05 PM
Rick F.  is telling (us) in this video  how to decrease the current down to zero AND beyond:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik&t=5619s

Just arrange multiple layers of secondary coils around the big main coil primay then insert plenty of ferrite coils in the (main) primay coil. That inserting of ferrites doesn't affects anything else (negatively) just reducing the feeding current below and beond zero
 (at 1hour 19 minutes 38 seconds in).
The ferrites did Not even made a retuning of the big coil because of the strong bonding/ lock R F says.

Look a bit into the video from 1H 18 min 15 sec. ==>  1H 20 min 05 seconds.

I think this thread "confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims" is the right place to perform a verification of that above.

 Itsu made in his thread at OUR https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.275
post # 280
 a first test about this.  I thank him for that.   ;D

Regards Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 29, 2019, 08:33:05 PM
Rick F.  is telling (us) in this video  how to decrease the current down to zero AND beyond:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik&t=5619s

Just arrange multiple layers of secondary coils around the big main coil primay then insert plenty of ferrite coils in the (main) primay coil. That inserting of ferrites doesn't affects anything else (negatively) just reducing the feeding current below and beond zero
 (at 1hour 19 minutes 38 seconds in).
The ferrites did Not even made a retuning of the big coil because of the strong bonding/ lock R F says.

Look a bit into the video from 1H 18 min 15 sec. ==>  1H 20 min 05 seconds.

I think this thread "confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims" is the right place to perform a verification of that above.

 Itsu made in his thread at OUR https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.275
post # 280
 a first test about this.  I thank him for that.   ;D

Regards Arne

You just forced me to watch that video where Rick determines power just looking at one led.
He said "there is lots of power there", without measuring power.
I can not understand this any more.

Void tried to explain to you how to proper measure the power and how leds can deceive.

This is beyond any fairytale.
At beggining of video he stated that he got HV and with voltage more power. What about current.

I am comming to point that this is bad joke!

Scope + voltage probe + current probe + math on scope. Average power.
Any other card trick is a joke.

Rick, come to your senses! Buy a current probe and start act as real researcher!

This is joke, right? This whole thread?

I mean no insult to anyone. But this is a joke? Somebody tell me that I am dreaming.

I will be happy if I am wrong!

I am going to watch some movie. Any movie is better than this. Star wars, anything!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 29, 2019, 09:07:11 PM
I think that Mr. Void and Mr. Gear had a point.

Without proper measurement this can go endless.

Mr. Gear is right. Scope, voltage and current probe is ultimate tool in Rick case.

You dont dream Mr. Gear. You saw the problem right.
Mr. Itsu , Mr. Tinsel and Mr.Void deserve their title.

You Rick! You have to deserve your Mr. title.
So, get serious and start proper measurement.
As Mr. Gear saw, any other method in your future posts I will see as a joke just as he does.

No ment to insult!
And please, dont answer to my post also! Please!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 29, 2019, 09:32:32 PM
Rick F.  is telling (us) in this video  how to decrease the current down to zero AND beyond:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik&t=5619s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik&t=5619s)

Just arrange multiple layers of secondary coils around the big main coil primay then insert plenty of ferrite coils in the (main) primay coil. That inserting of ferrites doesn't affects anything else (negatively) just reducing the feeding current below and beond zero
 (at 1hour 19 minutes 38 seconds in).
The ferrites did Not even made a retuning of the big coil because of the strong bonding/ lock R F says.

Look a bit into the video from 1H 18 min 15 sec. ==>  1H 20 min 05 seconds.

I think this thread "confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims" is the right place to perform a verification of that above.

 Itsu made in his thread at OUR https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.275 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.275)
post # 280
 a first test about this.  I thank him for that.   ;D

Regards Arne
Please explain why, if a Rick Device needs _zero current_ in order to operate.... why then can one not be operated at full performance off of just ONE of the receiver coils producing output from a first Rick Transmitter Device? Or even from the summed output of 70 receivers?
If you or anyone else thinks it can... then DO IT.   And demonstrate it. And make it truly Open Source, with all information needed so that others can DO IT too.
For that matter, if it requires ZERO CURRENT, why is a power supply or battery needed AT ALL? Surely a small capacitor of low ESR and low leakage can simply be charged to the voltage needed, and the transmitter "powered" off of that. Since ZERO CURRENT is being drawn, the voltage on the cap won't decrease and then you'll have a legit claim for OU.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 29, 2019, 09:36:02 PM
(snip)

PS the editor appears to have a problem with CR and LF it appears to mix them up witch is annoying and a never ending circle trying to compensate for :) :)
I don't think anyone except you and I actually know what Carriage Return and LineFeed characters are, or how both are needed for a hard "enter" new line, and how they must be fed to the LPT1 emulator in the correct order or you get ... garbled links, bad paragraph formatting, and et cetera.
Certainly we have been complaining about it for long enough. The forum did not do this before the recent "upgrade".
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 29, 2019, 09:40:35 PM
Did anyone ever find out the exact make and model of the LED bulbs used, or whether those LED bulbs use the High Brightness, Dimmable LED driver chip MAX16819 or 20.... which chip tries its best to maintain a constant brightness level of the LEDS it is driving, and/or can respond to PWM modulation of the input to produce the dimmable feature.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on July 29, 2019, 09:46:05 PM
You are convinced from Void post but criticize Ricks measurement. Ich have never seen such a flat discharge curve of his statistic in real life. It is simply impossible.
His Videos are made, that you can understand the process that give you gains. You have to replicate it for your own. This Videos are not made to prove anything, only give help for free. If you don't want this information, why you watch it?
99% of you are convinced that Ricks measurements are false. Everyone has confirmed each other in every negative claim about him. Why you are posting this things again and again?  I tell you something: Perhaps you feel there is more there. A big truth. And no one should find it? That is the reason, why you are all came in here and prevent a constructive discussion about that topic. I know it, aking knows it and also the whole hole silence readers, that cracked the code.

You just forced me to watch that video where Rick determines power just looking at one led.
He said "there is lots of power there", without measuring power.
I can not understand this any more.

Void tried to explain to you how to proper measure the power and how leds can deceive.

This is beyond any fairytale.
At beggining of video he stated that he got HV and with voltage more power. What about current.

I am comming to point that this is bad joke!

Scope + voltage probe + current probe + math on scope. Average power.
Any other card trick is a joke.

Rick, come to your senses! Buy a current probe and start act as real researcher!

This is joke, right? This whole thread?

I mean no insult to anyone. But this is a joke? Somebody tell me that I am dreaming.

I will be happy if I am wrong!

I am going to watch some movie. Any movie is better than this. Star wars, anything!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 29, 2019, 10:03:19 PM
You are convinced from Void post but criticize Ricks measurement.

Rick does not measure anything. He just quessing power of his circuits.
Where you saw that Rick measuring voltage and current on scope and make a math for power.???

Mr. Itsu does that all the time and showing power. Real transient power.
And Mr. Tinsel is right. If zero current is source, then the source is not needed or small cap will does the job.

This thread is joke of ignorance!

Are you blind?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 29, 2019, 10:12:02 PM
Did anyone ever find out the exact make and model of the LED bulbs used, or whether those LED bulbs use the High Brightness, Dimmable LED driver chip MAX16819 or 20.... which chip tries its best to maintain a constant brightness level of the LEDS it is driving, and/or can respond to PWM modulation of the input to produce the dimmable feature.
Hi TK,
The LED bulbs used are the 12 V version of the MR16 types, made for both AC and DC operation.
See such at ebay what  a.king21 included as example here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533892/topicseen/#msg533892   
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 29, 2019, 10:23:54 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik&t=5619s

37 min 00sek ==> 38 min 20 sek
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 29, 2019, 10:31:27 PM
Rick,

One more thing!
I trust what Mr. Itsu, Mr. Tinsel, Mr. Void and Mr. NickZ are showing me over the internet.

I dont trust your videos and statements.
Thats my choice and main only.
You can write novels if you want and it will not change a thing.
Start behaive like researcher and maybe, just maybe you can catch with them.

Start use your instruments and scope, that will help you.
If you dont know how to use your scope for transient purposes, dont be affraid and ask them.
Your level of knowledge is very foggy.

And when you start to use transient math, then you will see your mistakes, not before!

Again, this is not insult. You have 100+ pages of claims. Time to support them with evidence!
Dont you agree?

If you not, go f...,. yourself!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on July 29, 2019, 10:38:10 PM
Very nice. I was blind, but had hope that all this Videos from Rick ends in positive results. It is a barrier for people, that only would greedy grasp something without want to invest some time. That informations are not good for rough people, I think. I can see it on your last comment to Rick..wow!
Why did you make a big deal about measurement. It is very easy to do it very accurate via Watt hour meter (sorry, don't know the correct word in english, it is a DC Watt hour measurement Tool).
First you load your primary battery to maximum and unload it over the Wh-Meter. Now, you know your Wh in your battery or battery bank. Reload it to the same Cutoff Voltage and start your system. All other batteries (for example secondary battery bank) should be completly empty.
After your run you can unload all batteries in your system over the Wh-Meter and can prove for yourself, if your system is over- or underunity. Simply compare the total Wh after your run with the total Wh that you have measured before.
Rick does not measure anything. He just quessing power of his circuits.
Where you saw that Rick measuring voltage and current on scope and make a math for power.???

Mr. Itsu does that all the time and showing power. Real transient power.
And Mr. Tinsel is right. If zero current is source, then the source is not needed or small cap will does the job.

This thread is joke of ignorance!

Are you blind?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 29, 2019, 10:55:54 PM
Very nice. I was blind, but had hope that all this Videos from Rick ends in positive results. It is a barrier for people, that only greedy grasp something without do invest some time.
Why did you make a big deal about measurement. It is very easzy to do it very accurate via Watt hour meter (sorry, don't know the correct word in english, it is a DC Watt hour measurement Tool).
First you load your primary battery to maximum and unload it over the Wh-Meter. Now, you know your Wh in your battery ory battery bank. Reload it to the same Cutoff Voltage and start your system. All other batteriess (for example secondary battery bank) should be completly empty.
After your run you can unload all batteries in your sytem over the wh-Meter and can prove for yourself, if your system is over- or underunity. Simply compare the total Wh after your run with the Wh that you have measured before.

You must be aware that batteries can chemically produce current when they are under rated voltage or depleted.
Only capacitors can show true situation like Mr. Itsu did. He understood problem.
And he used supercaps.
You will be fooled with batteries.

Dont use batteries to.prove OU. Use capacitors of big capacitance, supercaps.

Why dont you do it and show to everyone OU? Why ask Mr. Gear to do it? Hmm?
Is that the same thing Rick does?
Envolve everyone to solve things for him?

Please do it, take a measurements and come back with results?
Dont take Ricks path of stating and doing nothing!
Thats the worst path!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on July 29, 2019, 11:01:20 PM
You are convinced from Void post but criticize Ricks measurement. Ich have never seen such a flat discharge curve of his statistic in real life. It is simply impossible.
His Videos are made, that you can understand the process that give you gains. You have to replicate it for your own. This Videos are not made to prove anything, only give help for free. If you don't want this information, why you watch it?
99% of you are convinced that Ricks measurements are false. Everyone has confirmed each other in every negative claim about him. Why you are posting this things again and again?  I tell you something: Perhaps you feel there is more there. A big truth. And no one should find it? That is the reason, why you are all came in here and prevent a constructive discussion about that topic. I know it, aking knows it and also the whole hole silence readers, that cracked the code.

The problem is that Rick NEVER makes any real measurements.  All he makes are excuses for why he doesn't make measurements.  A flat discharge curve from a battery doesn't mean anything if you don't know the amount of current being drawn from the battery.  If a battery has been fully charged and then allowed to rest for a few hours and then lightly loaded it will actually show an increase in voltage for the first few minutes because as the battery is first being used it will warm up slightly and that will increase the voltage.  Many inexperienced experimenters are fooled by this.

You are criticizing people that have been working in electronics for many many years.  They have put thousands of hours into investigating claims like Rick's.  Unless Rick is willing to share more than he has there just isn't any way to verify his claims.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 29, 2019, 11:02:09 PM
Mr. Gear,

I like your thinking. Sharp. It introduced some clearance into the mist in this thread.
If I can ask, I can see that you understand things. Is it professional?
You do this kind of things?

Just curious, you dont have to answer.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 29, 2019, 11:04:50 PM
#1687  : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d9Y9v6txZ9k   ;)
#1670:  rickfriedrich".....  I will present.... "
Give him the chance to explain correctly about his coil concept,function,efficiency !
After several years video presenting the members here should take the patience to wait for his new webside"in summer" and presentation/demonstration !

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 29, 2019, 11:22:26 PM
The skeptics may have got it wrong.
In this thread it is not going so much about real OU, but the best usage of lead acid batteries with such circuits as Rick´s one and getting the most usefull energy out of it.

So as BauDirEnergie already said, we just see, that the produced Watthours are bigger
than the Start-Energy put into the battery, before the test was started...

With these resonance circuits you can just extract more out of the batteries as the "one-wire"setup from the BackEMF-Line to the second batteries Positive terminal works just like a standing wave
and if you put in there some additional coils or better transformers there, you can extract a lot of energy there on their secondary output of the transformers.


Also the counter EMF that these transformers generate goes back to the driver circuit and really reduces pretty much the input current...

So all in all we probably have here a violation of the Lentz law and a better usage of the inputted energy...

So if it does not work with capacitors or supercaps, that is a different circuit and we should use that.with what it was shown to run... lol...


Anyway, if we just have longer lasting batteries on our loads, that is really great...

so instead of running a 3 Watts LED light on a 12 Volts 7 Amphour=84 Wh lead acid battery for 28 hours,
you now can now run it for 100 hours,
 that would be a great thing and a good circuit to use !

Don´t you agree ??

So this is probably imho the main focus, what Rick wants to show us, as I understand it....


Okay, if the battery is damaged faster than normal, due to these effects, must still be researched..but so far they seems to last quite well...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Gear on July 29, 2019, 11:29:01 PM
Very nice. I was blind, but had hope that all this Videos from Rick ends in positive results. It is a barrier for people, that only would greedy grasp something without want to invest some time. That informations are not good for rough people, I think. I can see it on your last comment to Rick..wow!
Why did you make a big deal about measurement. It is very easy to do it very accurate via Watt hour meter (sorry, don't know the correct word in english, it is a DC Watt hour measurement Tool).
First you load your primary battery to maximum and unload it over the Wh-Meter. Now, you know your Wh in your battery or battery bank. Reload it to the same Cutoff Voltage and start your system. All other batteries (for example secondary battery bank) should be completly empty.
After your run you can unload all batteries in your system over the Wh-Meter and can prove for yourself, if your system is over- or underunity. Simply compare the total Wh after your run with the total Wh that you have measured before.

You are good guy and trust too much. In every circuit you must measure input power and load power.
Otherwise you will be misslead into falxe thing.
I wont go into deep of topic. Lots of guys here done it and saw mistakes.
Nobody here is telling you that as a joke. They also been misslead many times and learned the lesson.
Measure input, output, thats the only way.
Dont trust nobody until you do your measurements.
Most realible measurement is transient one. You must have scope, voltage and current probe and ability to make math on scope.
Every other method sometimes can lead to nowhere.
There is no magic negative power which feeds lots of load. No. You measure how much your load consume. That is correct way.
Always measure! It will also show your mistakes as well!

I dont mean to discourage you.! Always take the measures the proper way!

Sorry to dissapoint you about Rick.


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on July 29, 2019, 11:47:51 PM

....

Anyway, if we just have longer lasting batteries on our loads, that is really great...

so instead of running a 3 Watts LED light on a 12 Volts 7 Amphour=84 Wh lead acid battery for 28 hours,
you now can now run it for 100 hours,
 that would be a great thing and a good circuit to use !

Don´t you agree ??

So this is probably imho the main focus, what Rick wants to show us, as I understand it....

...
But Stefan, Rick clearly stated :

...
Now if we look carefully at your position in these matters with your insistence about measuring LEDs, and your questions to me in that respect, we find that you now show your skepticism bent. Notice I answered your point in that measurement is 0.5W each (it is sometimes 3W when I put the ferrite coil in the transmitter, which also brings down the input to 0.5W) with larger LEDs. There were 15 total as I had 4 smaller coils with larger bulbs as well (one under the table and 4 at the top at one point--10 big coils, 4 smaller, and 1 on a ferrite rod). There were 75 small coils with LEDs totaling over 2W. So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input. All 18 people at the meeting could see that I could continue to add more and more coils with loads which only brought the input down.
...

So he claimed COP > 10 performance between the resonant TX and RX circuits. 

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 29, 2019, 11:51:00 PM
Stefan,

One thing is nott clear to me.
If you believe Rick so much, why you did not give him OU prize.????
 
Or this whole thing was just a show?
What about Mr. Itsu?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on July 30, 2019, 12:01:23 AM
You must be aware that batteries can chemically produce current when they are under rated voltage or depleted.
Only capacitors can show true situation like Mr. Itsu did. He understood problem.
And he used supercaps.
You will be fooled with batteries.

Dont use batteries to.prove OU. Use capacitors of big capacitance, supercaps.

Why dont you do it and show to everyone OU? Why ask Mr. Gear to do it? Hmm?
Is that the same thing Rick does?
Envolve everyone to solve things for him?

Please do it, take a measurements and come back with results?
Dont take Ricks path of stating and doing nothing!
Thats the worst path!
Sorry, I wrote "...should be completly empty.". I meant make it completly empty to the under cutoff voltage like 11V. My comment discribes exactly what big battery labratories do, to test their battery banks. You have to run the batteries into their specs and measure the Watt hour. You can do it for example 3 times and will see, that you have very accurate results, if the discharge rate and temperature of the cells are nearly the same.

Quote
Why dont you do it and show to everyone OU? Why ask Mr. Gear to do it? Hmm?
Please read it again, I have write to Mr. Gear: "After your run you can unload all batteries in your system over the Wh-Meter and can prove for YOURSELF....".
Even if I could supply a whole city from a button cell, you would say that I have a measurement error. :D
So it makes no sense to proof anything. You are to intelligent or what they call it here "accurate" for me. I don't claim OU. I see only gains for myself.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 12:03:20 AM
Mr. Gear just send me email.

He is also moderated because Rick!
Is this how things are going here?

I hope Rick will bring you glory. You can moderate me as well!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 30, 2019, 12:05:03 AM
Anyway, if we just have longer lasting batteries on our loads, that is really great...

so instead of running a 3 Watts LED light on a 12 Volts 7 Amphour=84 Wh lead acid battery for 28 hours,
you now can now run it for 100 hours,
 that would be a great thing and a good circuit to use !

Don´t you agree ??

Hi Stefan. Here is the issue with this.
If I connect a 12V MR16 LED bulb to a 12V battery directly, it will light with an efficiency of 100%,
minus any losses of any internal circuit components which may be inside the bulb itself.
Unless Rick's setup is OU, then it will light 12V LED bulbs with less efficiency than connecting
the bulbs directly to a 12V battery, due to losses in his driver circuit and in the other components in 
his setup.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 30, 2019, 12:47:33 AM
Hi TK,
The LED bulbs used are the 12 V version of the MR16 types, made for both AC and DC operation.
See such at ebay what  a.king21 included as example here:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533892/topicseen/#msg533892 (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg533892/topicseen/#msg533892)   
Gyula
Yes, I know, and I also know that there are probably thousands of different types of 12 volt MR16 LED bulbs. Some have COB LEDs, some have discrete 5mm LEDs, some have 3 or 4 or eight emitters... but most importantly SOME are just a resistor and series LEDs, and MANY incorporate the MAX16820 type High Brightness Dimmable LED controller chip inside.

This is why we need to know the _exact make and model_ of the LEDs used in RF's demonstrations, so we can get some of our own to test. It is certainly possible that a MR16 12 volt LED bulb with the MAX chip in it might behave very differently from one that just has a resistor and LEDs inside.

How are you going to correlate mere brightness with input power if there is a chip in there? And that chip is trying to maintain constant _visible_ brightness by PWMing its power to the LEDs as the input varies or fluctuates, and also can respond to PWM on the input side by being dimmable with COTS dimmer controllers.

Even with a good lightmeter, that chip is going to fool you more than once. I think if the bulb has the chip in it, the way to go will be to do a DC calibration on the LEDs themselves, and then scope the output of the driver chip as it goes to the LEDs, and so on, et cetera.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 30, 2019, 12:54:19 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik&t=5619s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kOGVfkoik&t=5619s)

37 min 00sek ==> 38 min 20 sek
Sure, he _says_ he can use the output of one of his coils to actually run the frequency generator. Aren't you curious at all why he doesn't actually SHOW that?


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 30, 2019, 04:20:23 AM
Well this thread rather amusing. Like a bunch of parrots repeating the same thing in the same room.  ::)

I go away for a minute and find ya'll slipping back into that old fallacy of thinking you can prove or disprove something over the internet. Same old assumption again and again. You are all so upset because I have taken away your online game here. For some it's a hobby game and others its a job no doubt. But to me it is funny how silly this is getting. You go on and on for hours, weeks, and now months in circles. Not just circle reasonings but circle circuits that kill the source charge. You'd think this was an Underunity list or something. The rules are there can be no overunity because that is the rule, that's the way circuits work of course. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't use meters of course!

Carroll,

You can assume whatever you like but I do use meters in the real world. I think I just showed an anemometer on video yesterday. hmmm that's meaningless. You guys don't even watch my videos and have no clue about anything I do. I think that is obvious enough.

Well, working in electronics doesn't even mean you know what the parts do. All I know about you guys is that I know nothing about you but a screen name and that you are a bunch of parrots saying the same things over and over again that there is nothing in what I showed. Again, if that was so then you would all have moved on. But you are all so very worked up about it. And just look at the views to this thread, 130,000!! hmmmm, must be nothing here. Move along. You guys are so confused because you keep assuming that you can prove or disprove something on these forums. You can't. Even one of you who believes this wants me to try and prove something over the videos. I've already done what they expect to be proof over video. But I don't want to encourage people to believe something like this over video. You must prove to yourself these things. The only "way to verify his claims" Carroll is in the real world! I've been doing that for 15 years. I've also showed more videos of these kind of stuff that most people or maybe anyone. Who knows. But I don't pretend to try and convince anyone of these things. I share information. I do cheesy videos when I get a moment, because I am showing a friend some point. Ya'll take things too seriously. You're so intent on disproving things with arguments from ignorance as this post reveals. You are certain I don't know anything, but are so bothered by it that you are obsessed with this.

Is this forum about OU or showing OU to be impossible? If it is about OU and I don't know anything about it, and surely am mistaken, then are there not any credible OU claims out there? Surely I am not the only one left am I? But no, you all really do believe there is something here. You are really upset that it has gotten so much traction. You present yourselves as interested in OU but constantly argue against the possibility. You make your limited understanding of conventional theory the standard. Well I quoted the leading authority and no one responded. It was the very heart of the matter. Then suddenly there was two or three pages filled of distractions. Typical response. You guys just pretend to no be able to see what Barrett said. You pretend to not believe in many body independent reactive systems. You pretend to just believe in the single closed looped circuit. But I'm not so convinced. Your body language reveals the truth by your reactions, omissions and methods. Again, your zeal to attack this information is based on the fact that you know this to be true and you don't want it to be revealed.

Anyway, so much of your arguments would be true IF, iiiiiiiifffffffff this was happening IN THE REAL WORLD! Remember, I did that video to bring out this reaction from all of you because I have been at this for 15 years and know all these games people like you play. Most of you have fallen on your faces and been exposed now. Most of you still assume you can prove something or disprove something over the internet. But that has been long settled now. It takes away all your relevance. Because you have nothing positive to offer but rude criticism. You guys show no real evidence of knowledge of Tesla, Stienmetz, Barrett, etc., or of Overunity claims in general. So all this is meaningless chatter. I wrote hundreds of responses to you but there has been only a few responses. How disproportionate ya think? One of me and how many of you in your relay tag team. lol. Why don't you start by telling me or us how Barrett doesn't know anything about electricity? Or Brad, why don't you tell us why people like me are giving Tesla a bad name? Prove from Tesla that he didn't teach on these things? You guys haven't done your homework, you are just using every fallacy in the book, including the unverifiable claims that you are some experts. These are just words. As for me, I don't play such games by thinking I can prove something over the internet. I prove things in the real world. But you just only exist in cyberland apparently. So you can create your own virtual reality I guess. Anyway, go read Barrett and figure out what he was getting at if you are so expert. Just maybe you will begin to realize what I have been doing all these years...

The problem is that Rick NEVER makes any real measurements.  All he makes are excuses for why he doesn't make measurements.  A flat discharge curve from a battery doesn't mean anything if you don't know the amount of current being drawn from the battery.  If a battery has been fully charged and then allowed to rest for a few hours and then lightly loaded it will actually show an increase in voltage for the first few minutes because as the battery is first being used it will warm up slightly and that will increase the voltage.  Many inexperienced experimenters are fooled by this.

You are criticizing people that have been working in electronics for many many years.  They have put thousands of hours into investigating claims like Rick's.  Unless Rick is willing to share more than he has there just isn't any way to verify his claims.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on July 30, 2019, 07:13:05 AM
I watched your latest video with the fans and charging circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk


Might the decrease in input current be a result of obtaining better efficiency?


To you, is "Free Energy" the same as "Overunity"?


Perhaps you are squeezing "more" energy from the source to the load....this does not necessarily mean it is free or OU.


I am sure I did some circuit simulation testing many years ago with this setup, and achieved the same results you just showed. I will have to see if I can find it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 30, 2019, 08:31:21 AM
Oh I won't forget your prejudice. You assume that I am mistaken by 150 to 250 times. Yeah, you are the expert to prove things out so that everyone is to believe what you say. The guy to ensure that no claim on OUR ever qualifies. A true gate keeper indeed!

I addressed those questions in the video and comments.

So if I obtained better efficiency with a single moving of a diode (and adding another) then how can that be explained? Surely I am an idiot according to you and most of you guys on these two lists. Surely I don't use meters and or know the first thing about anything. So how could I figure out how to make the input drop by 70-80ma on such a fan that is made by the millions? All with just repositioning of a diode? That must be a fairly important thing? How could that be overlooked? hmmmm, I wonder if there may be something else in this?

What about the battery charging? We are not just talking about greater efficiency (when it is fairly high already), but a battery charging as well. Now as I said in the video, that is not the ideal way to do this. But it does give people something to consider. It gives them something they didn't have before while they still have the same CFMs. So that extra is free. Now if it was not a very popular motor then you could say well it may just have been running very inefficiently. But this helps people to see what they are missing. Again, the better way is to replace the circuitry as is usually done, but that doesn't give the exact comparison with the same CFMs and self-starting.

I'm sure you guys would never be able to settle upon what the real efficiency of any motor really is so that you would never be able to evaluate any such claim. Like I said, you will be at this for another 5 years playing with words while some of continue to use such fans for another 5 years (as I have used for 14 years). But if you can find an pulse motor that you can be confident as to its real efficiency and decide what it would take to for there to be free energy above that, then I would be impressed that you got to first base. I doubt however that you would even admit if you got 10% more energy than what is supposed to be possible. Maybe you would say that is not free energy. It's all word games isn't with you guys. Oh and number games. Now what would you do if the batteries could just keep rotating around all summer long? Or if the input battery stayed the same while additional loads were added to the output?

It doesn't matter guys, it is just a video. It doesn't matter if I show a meter like this. I could show you the same with the bulbs as you have been asking, but then you would not have written what you have. You would still not believe. And that is fine, because I never expect you to believe a stranger over the internet. You are not here to examine everything. If I showed the bulbs with all the meters, light meters, scope shots, etc., what would happen. The exact same things that have been happening from day one. I am automatically wrong because I violate what you claim is impossible. In the end people can believe what they want from information that is shared. People can believe that human flight is not possible while others fly around the world. People can modify fans, as tens of thousands have over the last 14 years, and they can have excess power. Others will play word and number games and stay in the school debate room. Some of us deal with real-world technology and use these processes to make motors do whatever we want. These are not new ideas. This is over 100 years. It is rather amazing that we can have two large forums where you are considered an expert, and put in place as a gate keeper over OU claims, and you don't even have the very basic experience of OU yet! And all the while you rail on me for sharing some information while I repeatedly say that you cannot prove or disprove OU over the internet. So no, I have zero confidence that you will ever say anything positive or admit to anything that resembles free energy or OU. The whole lot of you play tag-team to try and disprove anything like that. You guys have zero foundation for OU research. You have no justification for OU possibilities just like G finally admitted. You act like you are open but you give zero reason. Actually negative/below zero as you aggressively attack the very idea of OU directly and indirectly.

I'm sure you have done everything Mr. Expert. So why doesn't everyone just then conclude that there is no such thing as OU. The gatekeeper has spoken. The man behind the curtain is the new Wizard of OZ!

I watched your latest video with the fans and charging circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk


Might the decrease in input current be a result of obtaining better efficiency?


To you, is "Free Energy" the same as "Overunity"?


Perhaps you are squeezing "more" energy from the source to the load....this does not necessarily mean it is free or OU.


I am sure I did some circuit simulation testing many years ago with this setup, and achieved the same results you just showed. I will have to see if I can find it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 01:30:17 PM
: "After your run you can unload all batteries in your system over the Wh-Meter and can prove for YOURSELF....".
Even if I could supply a whole city from a button cell, you would say that I have a measurement error. :D
So it makes no sense to proof anything. You are to intelligent or what they call it here "accurate" for me. I don't claim OU. I see only gains for myself.

I dont want to be intelligent.

 I been fooled with my own measurements so many times, and I was thinking that I have OU.
Then I realized that only transient power measurements are valid, and accurate.
And when I started to practice that, it was easy for me to see my own mistakes and pitfalls.

Mr. Void is trying to tell you same thing over and over but nobody listen.

Measure input power and load power, and then you can see how your system works.
There is no other way!
Any other way leads to your own pitfall!

I am not sure what are you saying here?
After the run, you remove batteries and system works?

Look at Kapanadze videos. Does he affraid to show 20+ Amps on output?
And he shows how much is going back to system.

There is reason that person does not want to measure transient power.
If he does, everything in which he believe can go down into the oblivion in split second.
But on the other hand, transient measurement can show more on load than input, which is very good, and solves everything.

Why the fear of the transient measurements? It is very quick and easy!
Mr. Itsu does that all the time and show it in his videos.
Trust the instruments, not your eyes.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 01:46:17 PM
Even if I could supply a whole city from a button cell, you would say that I have a measurement error. :D
So it makes no sense to proof anything.
If you measure on your button cell transient power of 1 Watt, and on the line which powers city 10 Watt, then you have OU, and I dont have to trust anything except your proper measurement.
And, yes, then I believe you.

It has sense to proper measure!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 30, 2019, 02:03:32 PM
Rick truth is nobody here gets to have the final word or be perceived a "God" , the place is now filled with experimenters ...who have learned all the mistakes
the hard way

problem is you actually ,you're not posting an experiment to be discussed and investigated.
you are actually playing the wizzard here !

 Poynts contributions and investigations are always well presented and transparent !
and he will spend his time explaining [tons of time] and being certain others can question any issue they might have
100%. [has a decade or more of this track record here and elsewhere.

never seen anyone have an issue with that.and I have never once seen a person teach Poynt OU .

please be the first to do that !!
I must add there are experiments with small gains which seem to taunt...but those cannot self run or be looped,and most definitely not run big loads with small input.
Stefan if your friends won't share their work here [seems none of Ricks students will either ...]maybe put a budget to this and we'll pick a builder to fund
and do it here .100% transparent energy audit .even let Rick pick the builder !!
end of story..the truth !!

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 02:07:02 PM
Why are transient power measurement valid?

Because it covers phase shifting and shows real average power.
You can be fooled with phase shift so much, and transient measurements math correct that aspect for you, measuring true average power.

Buy a cheap scope, and cheap current probe and start to see your own mistakes.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 30, 2019, 02:15:30 PM
(snip)
problem is you actually (snip)
Actually that's right.  RF's problem is "you". That is, his problem does not reside in himself. He has no problems. He'd be fine except for all the "youse" who keep asking him to support his claims with evidence rather than anecdote.

Evidence:
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 02:15:34 PM
If the Rick has OU, that would be great!
Even I will buy his products to support him.

But sooner or later, he has to do transient power measurement to see for himself what he got.
After that, the whole world will believe him.
He wont need to write novels any more.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 30, 2019, 02:20:39 PM
By the way... I'd still like to see the evidence for the claim that Rick can run his transmitter's Frequency Generator from the output of one, or even several, of his receiver coils. 

I'm not asking you to "PROVE" anything, Rick. Just support your statement -- this one in particular -- with a simple demonstration. I'm sure I could do it in a five minute video without even speaking -- if I had an OU wireless power transmission system.

(Thanks, seaad, for the image from the video, saved me a lot of trouble)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 30, 2019, 02:26:44 PM
Stefan if your friends won't share their work here [seems none of Ricks students will either ...]maybe put a budget to this and we'll pick a builder to fund .
and do it here .100% transparent energy audit .even let Rick pick the builder !!
end of story..
EDIT HHmm  here member Tito dropped off a related PDF he says keeps getting removed ?http://www.borderlands.de/Links/Free_Energy_Multiplier.pdf (http://www.borderlands.de/Links/Free_Energy_Multiplier.pdf)
Tito is another member professing Christian values ...by keeping secrets ...[is it ten years now ??]
I never heard this about Christianity until I read Tito ...and now it seems contagious ...a new face here.
No lives matter .. when everything is good at Tito's house and....  the lives who can Pay ?? ...at ...
somebody plays God here ...but its definitely not member Poynt
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 30, 2019, 03:49:59 PM
Guys, regarding statements about a circuit setup which can supposedly improve efficiency when powering
12V fans or 12V light bulbs, if you power 12V light bulbs or 12V fans from a 12V battery directly
with no circuitry in between, then you are powering those loads with essentially 100% efficiency.
(Regarding fans, assuming the electric motor in the fan already has suitable power factor correction in place.)

The only way an intervening magic circuit X can improve on 100% efficiency is if your magic circuit X
produces a COP > 1. There is no other way to improve on a setup which is already essentially 100% efficient.
See the attached graphic for illustration of what I am saying. :)

If some given magic circuit X is really COP > 1 of any significance, then you should be able to self loop the setup so it self sustains.
All the excuses and deflections in the world won't change these plain and straight forward facts.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 04:07:46 PM
Until this morning I did not know that Mr. Gear is R&D Simens. His deparment has 136 employes.
They already this Rick motor test with AC source in the past.
I will not go into details of reactive power, which in Ricks case splits, returning power to battery and motor.
Reactive power returned to motor will increase RPM which results with more output to load which has to be capacitive or inductive. More power to load creates more reactive power and loop is created. It can go to some point.
Sorry, but no OU.
It is better than simple transformer feedback loop but still no OU.
It is replica of big systems of power companies where they use expensive motor/generators for compensation of reactive power and returning power back to grid. More complicated because their generators are AC and phase align is needed for power to be returned to grid.
Rick uses DC battery and simple rectification does do job.

When he saw Ricks video, he laughs and he pointed some things and has banned for that.
He still laughs.

So it is not new thing, power companies use it for a long time.
Rick has to have caps on load to make reactive power.

He said he wish the best to Rick and he has more serious projects to do.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 30, 2019, 04:23:57 PM
Until this morning I did not know that Mr. Gear is R&D Simens. His deparment has 136 employes.
They already this Rick motor test with AC source in the past.
I will not go into details of reactive power, which in Ricks case splits, returning power to battery and motor.
Reactive power returned to motor will increase RPM which results with more output to load which has to be capacitive or inductive. More power to load creates more reactive power and loop is created. It can go to some point.
Sorry, but no OU.
It is better than simple transformer feedback loop but still no OU.
It is replica of big systems of power companies where they use expensive motor/generators for compensation of reactive power and returning power back to grid. More complicated because their generators are AC and phase align is needed for power to be returned to grid.
Rick uses DC battery and simple rectification does do job.

When he saw Ricks video, he laughs and he pointed some things and has banned for that.
He still laughs.

So it is not new thing, power companies use it for a long time.
Rick has to have caps on load to make reactive power.

He said he wish the best to Rick and he has more serious projects to do.
I have just read all of Gear's posts.  Telling Rick off in swear words is not the dignity I  would expect from the head of Siemens R and D.
He should be fired if that is his attitude.



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 04:27:19 PM
At the consumer side.
We all know if we do power correction of motor with capacitor it must have exact value to do that.
If it is too small motor will consume too much.
If it is to big, it will create to much reactive power. Thats the trick.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 30, 2019, 04:40:17 PM
Power measurements without current probe.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on July 30, 2019, 04:40:45 PM
I think the problem here is that nobody show the path to convert high Q into high reactive power and then this reactive power to real output power, basically converting the Q into real gain. also nobody explained how this could be possible. I've found two  reasons
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 04:59:32 PM
I have just read all of Gear's posts.  Telling Rick off in swear words is not the dignity I  would expect from the head of Siemens R and D.
He should be fired if that is his attitude.

My dear,

You an Rick will never get a job in Siemens.
The whole deparment of 136 people are laughing and making jokes of you two!

Enjoy until proper measurement will be taken. Then state same thing.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 30, 2019, 05:14:45 PM
http://www.patent-de.com/19860717/DE3501076A1.html
What does "Mr.gear" think about it ?
Dr. Dipl. -Ing Wolfgang Volkrodt ( befreundet gewesen mit einem Herrn Dr. Klaus von Klitzing,Kiel)
 https://www.google.com/search?q=dr.wolfgang+volkrodt&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 05:21:48 PM
Mr. Gear is head of department. He makes the call who gets fired.
It was his decision to look into this. One of many before.
He sends to you both best regards.
He will tell you and others all of this in person but he was moderated because of number of clicks and not real quest of OU. That are his words.
He called Ricks thread bunch of ignorant people without any knowledge.
He means probably you and Rick. But thats only what I think.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 30, 2019, 05:34:05 PM
By companies like Siemens( spanish:Ximenez) also "Abteilungsleiter" can become fired or get with 55 years their"golden handshake' ( Fruehrente ::) ).
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deutsches-museum.de%2Fsammlungen%2Fmeisterwerke%2Fmeisterwerke-iii%2Fdynamomaschine%2F
The dynamo-principle ( Siemens also a Physics-unit)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 05:36:19 PM
http://www.patent-de.com/19860717/DE3501076A1.html
What does "Mr.gear" think about it ?


Mr. Gear was moderated because he has means and men power to quickly check all of the claims which is not good for attendance of forum and number of clicks.
While moderated he can not answer to you. He has no access to this forum and he does not think of opening another account. This tale is over for him. Thats what he said.

I liked him. He has sharpness like Mr. Tinsel and knowledge, and probably gear and tech I never saw in my life.
I am still in contact, but I am little fish for him.

He only replied because I contacted him first when I saw potential in that man.

Thats it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 05:57:31 PM
What I learned from Mr. Gear mails is:

From 30 years of R&D experience, only transient math scope power measurements are valid.
Everything else leads to some kind of error, and missbeliveve of OU.

Most of the time people does not care for phase angle which can bring power down to zero while has great amplitude of voltage.

Only people which repeat that here are Mr. Void and Mr.Itsu and nobody listen.

You can not measure power with V meter and A meter. Only in smooth DC, but everything else, oscillations or square wave or you name it is transient in nature and complex to measure.

I will thank the man who teached me this. He knows to whom I refer. Great man!
Thank you!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 06:28:03 PM
I think the problem here is that nobody show the path to convert high Q into high reactive power and then this reactive power to real output power, basically converting the Q into real gain. also nobody explained how this could be possible. I've found two  reasons

Reactive power is reflected power from load to source. Overloading the source.
Reactive power is produced from inductive and capacitive load.
By putting to much capacitance parallel to motor you will create more reactive power which goes back to source. That is only one example how to create reactive power.

Try to put in series capacitor and inductor in AC circuit. They must have certain values to resonate.
You will see how much reactive power you can produce.
Your source will explode if not managed with power correction systems.
It is not hard to produce reactive power. It is hard to manage it and feed back to system without any damage.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 06:47:42 PM
All of this you have on youtube.
Search for reactive power and power correction systems.
Very simple stuff.
Also phase angle related to power.
You can have phase angle and no power or phase of voltage and current aligned for max power.
Thats the stuff fot begginers.

And there is no other way to calculate this without scope, voltage and current probe.
Average power math. The only way. Just as Mr. Void repeat to you always.

Everything else is fairytale.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 30, 2019, 08:19:37 PM
Mr. Gear is head of department. He makes the call who gets fired.
It was his decision to look into this. One of many before.
He sends to you both best regards.
He will tell you and others all of this in person but he was moderated because of number of clicks and not real quest of OU. That are his words.
He called Ricks thread bunch of ignorant people without any knowledge.
He means probably you and Rick. But thats only what I think.
Well tell him to look into the 4 Benitez granted patents.  I doubt anyone from his team can understand them.  When you laugh at me and Rick you are laughing at Carlos Benitez and his 4 granted patents.  It is YOU who are ignorant and also the Siemens department.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 30, 2019, 08:31:15 PM
Well this is all funny until I rotate my batteries around for years. This was only the basic level of seeing some free energy. Improving the efficiency and also charging batteries or running other loads while you couldn't before. All by just simply adding a diode and load. It is a very simple and effective revelation. You are really interested in suppressing this idea I see, just look at all your postings all of a sudden. Filled a whole page with nothing at all. It really gets under your skin.

Until this morning I did not know that Mr. Gear is R&D Simens. His deparment has 136 employes.
They already this Rick motor test with AC source in the past.
I will not go into details of reactive power, which in Ricks case splits, returning power to battery and motor.
Reactive power returned to motor will increase RPM which results with more output to load which has to be capacitive or inductive. More power to load creates more reactive power and loop is created. It can go to some point.
Sorry, but no OU.
It is better than simple transformer feedback loop but still no OU.
It is replica of big systems of power companies where they use expensive motor/generators for compensation of reactive power and returning power back to grid. More complicated because their generators are AC and phase align is needed for power to be returned to grid.
Rick uses DC battery and simple rectification does do job.

When he saw Ricks video, he laughs and he pointed some things and has banned for that.
He still laughs.

So it is not new thing, power companies use it for a long time.
Rick has to have caps on load to make reactive power.

He said he wish the best to Rick and he has more serious projects to do.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 09:47:35 PM
Stefan,

Please, remove moderations from Gear.
I am trying to convince him to help, and he is half willing to do it.
He has army of people and SF tech behind him.
He was maybe rude at the times but he is great asset.

It is not goal to disprove Rick. Goal is to improve what he does if it is possible.
Your choice!

Thanks!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 30, 2019, 11:01:42 PM
If Mr.Gear will help Mr.King work thru his sincere and fervent beliefs.
and post it here...open source ?

yes this would be wonderful...
I would imagine if tempers could be kept in check ?I don't think Mr.Stefan would have an issue ..
if he does not notice the offer by tomorrow ,I will try very hard to let him know..

I have a link which I will add here shortly for Benitez patent [Mr.King's "proof"]
very important to be nice to Mr.King here...and hopefully reciprocity from Mr.King?
No cussing, choke holds ...ear biting [ankles OK] ..eye poking or other cheap moves...a mostly "Gentleman's FE discussion and investigation"!!
below a generic Benitez FE document posted this AM by member Mr.Tito.

http://www.borderlands.de/Links/Free_Energy_Multiplier.pdf (http://www.borderlands.de/Links/Free_Energy_Multiplier.pdf)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 30, 2019, 11:34:32 PM
Well this is all funny until I rotate my batteries around for years. This was only the basic level of seeing some free energy. Improving the efficiency and also charging batteries or running other loads while you couldn't before. All by just simply adding a diode and load. It is a very simple and effective revelation. You are really interested in suppressing this idea I see, just look at all your postings all of a sudden. Filled a whole page with nothing at all. It really gets under your skin.

Yes Rick,

You can feedback and prolong battery discharging.
With usage of reactive power even more than simple feedback.
Nobody is denied that to you.

You made your system , maybe you did not know that power companies does that for long time with their motor/genarator power correction systems.

You did something, but not OU. Sorry to inform you.
Efficient, but not OU.

That does make a difference. You made a effort and did efficient system.
It was never debate about that.

If Mr. Gear will be unmoderated, he will explain in to you with more details.
They made systems like this before, and give up because it is not possible to apply it to mobile phone or small devices Siemens does.
But they use some of that knowledge in their tech to prolong battery life.

Nobody said you did nothing. Anyone who does that much effort is worth.
You should start to work wirh others more experienced than me and develop your tech further.
It has potential.

But your insulting and rude nature has been stoping you till now.
Transient measuring is not for others. It is for you.
To determine true nature of your circuit and how much you can pull from it.

Mr. Void is not telling you fairytale. He is been showing you correct path to make your tech even better.

And you will learn value of true measuring. It is not a joke. I have been through that.
Misslead by myself.
Thanks to great teacher,  if he read this, thanks, I learned to spot my mistakes, save my time and progress faster.
But only trough proper measuring things.
Transient math power measure, ultimate one. No error!

You been on this 15 years, but when I listen somebody who has 30 years of experience in R&D with serious projects then I realize how little I know.
They been research all kind of OU stuff.
Yours is just one of many. And they already tried this, so they know what are you talking about.

Mr. Gear is willing to share their finds as much as he is allowed to.
They found more to it which he cant disclose, and they use it in their products.

That is official statement of Siemens department and his.
Siemens has R&D deparments in lots of countries.

If Mr. Gear will be unmoderated he may tell you more than me.
I can tell you, he is brilliant mind and sharp. Also very temper person.
You know or you dont know for him.
He will cut you in half in a moment.
But also he will share a lot if you listen.

Nobody is against you Rick.
But nobody like your rude nature and god syndrome.

It is up to you. You can work with people or you can be alone!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 12:13:10 AM
Really all Rick has to do is follow through with what he claimed in his video, and take the output from
one or more of his coils and use that to try to power his generator circuit in a closed loop. No need for a battery
if you do that. Just charging up a large filter capacitor at the input should work. I think the reason that Rick doesn't
attempt this and instead makes excuses is because, as we all should know, the chances are very high it will not actually
work (not actually COP > 1).

If his setup really is showing a significant COP > 1, as has been implied, then this should be a relatively easy
thing to demonstrate. As I have pointed out, lighting 12V LED lights connected directly to a 12V battery is already
essentially 100% efficiency, so Rick's circuit is pointless unless it produces a COP > 1.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 31, 2019, 12:44:27 AM
You are good guy and trust too much. In every circuit you must measure input power and load power.
Otherwise you will be misslead into falxe thing.
I wont go into deep of topic. Lots of guys here done it and saw mistakes.
Nobody here is telling you that as a joke. They also been misslead many times and learned the lesson.
Measure input, output, thats the only way.
Dont trust nobody until you do your measurements.
Most realible measurement is transient one. You must have scope, voltage and current probe and ability to make math on scope.
Every other method sometimes can lead to nowhere.
There is no magic negative power which feeds lots of load. No. You measure how much your load consume. That is correct way.
Always measure! It will also show your mistakes as well!

I dont mean to discourage you.! Always take the measures the proper way!

Sorry to dissapoint you about Rick.

Have you replicated it yourself with the original parts from Rick and replicated it ???
My friend has and has got the same results as Rick ! lol...So far regarding the measurements...You are just a skeptic, that has probably never done any good measurements yourself..
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 31, 2019, 12:46:17 AM
But Stefan, Rick clearly stated :

So he claimed COP > 10 performance between the resonant TX and RX circuits. 

Gyula
So Gyula,even better, then we get 10 times running time out of the batteries ! Yes, that can be possible...My friend will show soon his replication...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 12:50:34 AM
Have you replicated it yourself with the original parts from Rick and replicated it ???
My friend has and has got the same results as Rick ! lol...So far regarding the measurements...You are just a skeptic, that has probably never done any good measurements yourself..
Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan. If your friend got the same results as Rick showed, then that is not so good.
Rick did not show anything at all convincing, as has been pointed out already.
Try powering some non-inductive resistors or incandescent bulbs of at least 5 Watts rating,
or better yet self loop it as Rick claimed in one of his videos should work. I would really like to
see an honest attempt by Rick or your friend to self loop the setup. Keep in mind that if I power
12V Lights directly with a 12V battery, that the efficiency is effectively 100%. There is no point to
Rick's circuit if it is not COP > 1.


All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 31, 2019, 12:53:26 AM
. You are really interested in suppressing this idea I see, just look at all your postings all of a sudden. Filled a whole page with nothing at all. It really gets under your skin.

I am not suppressing you!

I am encouraging you to measure it properly and tell the world you are right!

They all expect that from you.

And whole world is waiting for you to do that after 115 pages of claims.
So , it is up to you, not on me.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 31, 2019, 12:58:50 AM
Hi Stefan. If your friend got the same results as Rick showed, then that is not so good.
Rick did not show anything at all convincing, as has been pointed out already.
Try powering some non-inductive resistors or incandescent bulbs of at least 5 Watts rating,
or better yet self loop it as Rick claimed in one of his videos should work. I would really like to
see an honest attempt by Rick or your friend to self loop the setup. Keep in mind that if I power
12V Lights directly with a 12V battery, that the efficiency is effectively 100%. There is no point to
Rick's circuit if it is not COP > 1.


All the best...
benfr,a.king and the Admin adviced about the "special written information in Mr.Friedrichs' his booklet",so not his,RF, videos gives the right way to explore the possible success !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 31, 2019, 01:01:11 AM
Hi Stefan. Here is the issue with this.
If I connect a 12V MR16 LED bulb to a 12V battery directly, it will light with an efficiency of 100%,
minus any losses of any internal circuit components which may be inside the bulb itself.
Unless Rick's setup is OU, then it will light 12V LED bulbs with less efficiency than connecting
the bulbs directly to a 12V battery, due to losses in his driver circuit and in the other components in 
his setup.

All the best...
Sure I undertand this, if his LED lights light then only due to the RF bursts only with maybe half of the rated output power,but he can connect several LEDs like 10 x 3 Watts LEDs and they shine at maybe 1.5  Watts each and you can run these LED bulbs for 10 timeslonger on the same battery with his circuit, than a single 3 Watts LED at full 3 Watts output, that would have generated then15 Watts x 10 times longer...

It seems the batteries are required in these circuits as they play an important role, so you just can´t run the circuit just on supercaps...
Maybe the energy is directly converted from inside the battery then...
This is, what we still have to find out...Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 01:05:45 AM
benfr,a.king and the Admin adviced about the "special written information in Mr.Friedrichs' his booklet",so not his,RF, videos gives the right way to explore the possible success !

Hi IancaIV. Rick stated in his video that he could take the output from one of the
output coils and use that to power his generator in a self looped mode.
I was merely asking for Rick or someone else to demonstrate this claim made by Rick.
I would suggest using a large filter capacitor instead of battery for the power source so
we don't have to leave the demonstration running for a day or more... ;)

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 31, 2019, 01:09:26 AM
Stefan,

Please, remove moderations from Gear.
I am trying to convince him to help, and he is half willing to do it.
He has army of people and SF tech behind him.
He was maybe rude at the times but he is great asset.

It is not goal to disprove Rick. Goal is to improve what he does if it is possible.
Your choice!

Thanks!
I am moderating all the skeptics here in this thread now, so I can better answer them...So we have a better understanding... Thanks for your understanding...I don´t wnat the skeptics to ruin this thread...
All the skeptics who now  flame Rick have not shown their own measurements...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 01:09:57 AM
Sure I undertand this, if his LED lights light then only due to the RF bursts only with maybe half of the rated output power,but he can connect several LEDs like 10 x 3 Watts LEDs and they shine at maybe 1.5  Watts each and you can run these LED bulbs for 10 timeslonger on the same battery with his circuit, than a single 3 Watts LED at full 3 Watts output, that would have generated then15 Watts x 10 times longer...

It seems the batteries are required in these circuits as they play an important role, so you just can´t run the circuit just on supercaps...
Maybe the energy is directly converted from inside the battery then...
This is, what we still have to find out...Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan. Ok, but speaking from experience, I suspect that the LED lights are
not actually consuming as much power as one might think just looking at them. My suggestion in that case
would be to try it with one to five watt incandescent bulbs or so, assuming you can find something suitable.

P.S. Do you know the exact type of bulbs your friend is testing with?

P.P.S. Here is a link to small 12V, 4 Watt incandescent bulbs, set of 4 pieces (although the title says 1 watt, but it is listed as 4 Watt on the bulb):
(although apparently these particular bulbs are currently not available. It is getting tougher to find this type of bulb now... )
https://www.amazon.com/eTopLighting-T5BULB12V4W-4P-12V-Wedge-Bulb/dp/B0043CMN1U/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=eTopLighting+T5BULB12V4W-4P+12V+1W+T5+Wedge+Bulb&qid=1564528852&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Also see:
https://www.bulbtown.com/Less_Than_1_Watt_s/1015.htm
Here are their 3 watt incandescent bulbs:
https://www.bulbtown.com/3_Watt_s/449.htm

All the best...
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 31, 2019, 01:15:13 AM
Stefan,

Please, remove moderations from Gear.
I am trying to convince him to help, and he is half willing to do it.
He has army of people and SF tech behind him.
He was maybe rude at the times but he is great asset.

It is not goal to disprove Rick. Goal is to improve what he does if it is possible.
Your choice!

Thanks!
User Gear only made also rude comments....
As I said, I will moderate all users, who just flame Rick now...
So I can better see, what they have posted and let it through and directly answer their postings or delete then,

if their is no technical data in it and they only flame...

I guess this is the only way to keep this topic going now without too much nonsense claimed over here and flamed...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 31, 2019, 01:21:10 AM
Sure I undertand this, if his LED lights light then only due to the RF bursts only with maybe half of the rated output power,but he can connect several LEDs like 10 x 3 Watts LEDs and they shine at maybe 1.5  Watts each and you can run these LED bulbs for 10 timeslonger on the same battery with his circuit, than a single 3 Watts LED at full 3 Watts output, that would have generated then15 Watts x 10 times longer...

It seems the batteries are required in these circuits as they play an important role, so you just can´t run the circuit just on supercaps...
Maybe the energy is directly converted from inside the battery then...
This is, what we still have to find out...Regards, Stefan.

Stefan,

Rick has to unterstand that nobody is against him.
But he must start to participate.

What you suggest to do next? Continue without measuring?
Just build the thing without knowing what is really happening and how  much we can pull from that system? And if we can pull more than we put in?

Because we can not find common point, can you be the one and make some decisions as neutral person.????
Suggest next steps?
Make some rules?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 31, 2019, 01:27:06 AM
Hi Stefan. If your friend got the same results as Rick showed, then that is not so good.
Rick did not show anything at all convincing, as has been pointed out already.
Try powering some non-inductive resistors or incandescent bulbs of at least 5 Watts rating,
or better yet self loop it as Rick claimed in one of his videos should work. I would really like to
see an honest attempt by Rick or your friend to self loop the setup. Keep in mind that if I power
12V Lights directly with a 12V battery, that the efficiency is effectively 100%. There is no point to
Rick's circuit if it is not COP > 1.


All the best...
It seems these battery circuits need the batteries ! Maybe the additional extracted energy is generated inside the battery cells...
So closing the loop without the batteries is not possible...
So if you charge up a 12 Volts battery with 80 Wattshours and you will get out of it with Rick circuit   160  Wattshours, what do you call this ??
Some people call it OU , some call it better efficiency out of batteries...lol...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on July 31, 2019, 01:29:44 AM
Stefan,

Rick has to unterstand that nobody is against him.
But he must start to participate.

What you suggest to do next? Continue without measuring?
Just build the thing without knowing what is really happening and how  much we can pull from that system? And if we can pull more than we put in?

Because we can not find common point, can you be the one and make some decisions as neutral person. ??? ?
Suggest next steps?
Make some rules?

Have you built it ?
My friend has..and so has Rick..
So when my friend is ready with his new parts we will show it...
You just keep on flaming here... and you don´t add any technical details or analysis yourself.... so you keep being moderated, so I can much better answer...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 01:36:55 AM
It seems these battery circuits need the batteries ! Maybe the additional extracted energy is generated inside the battery cells...
So closing the loop without the batteries is not possible...
So if you charge up a 12 Volts battery with 80 Wattshours and you will get out of it with Rick circuit   160  Wattshours, what do you call this ??
Some people call it OU , some call it better efficiency out of batteries...lol...

Hi Stefan. Ok on possibly needing a battery in there. I would suggest to try it with 3 Watt
incandescent bulbs instead. If the bulbs are really consuming about 1 Watt or more, then it
should work with 3 Watt incandescent bulbs as well. Would you agree? I posted a web link above for a website
which sells 3 Watt incandescent bulbs, if you can't find them locally.

All the best...


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on July 31, 2019, 01:40:27 AM
Have you built it ?
My friend has..and so has Rick..
So when my friend is ready with his new parts we will show it...
You just keep on flaming here... and you don´t add any technical details or analysis yourself.... so you keep being moderated, so I can much better answer...

And Rick does provide technical data and measurements?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 31, 2019, 01:42:30 AM
Hi IancaIV. Rick stated in his video that he could take the output from one of the
output coils and use that to power his generator in a self looped mode.
I was merely asking for Rick or someone else to demonstrate this claim made by Rick.
I would suggest using a large filter capacitor instead of battery for the power source so
we don't have to leave the demonstration running for a day or more... ;)

All the best...
If he said this in his video and one coil output is sufficient for the frequency generator he can use as intermittent energy source
https://www.google.com/search?q=ultrabattery&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
with the advantages from capacitor and battery !
Probably in his " summer new webside release" ! Time will tell !
Output measurement : not in Watt,not in VA( MHz- pulse power), calculating with Joule is the correctest way !
I do not demand anything from him
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2019, 02:03:42 AM
(snip)
Also see:
https://www.bulbtown.com/Less_Than_1_Watt_s/1015.htm (https://www.bulbtown.com/Less_Than_1_Watt_s/1015.htm)
Here are their 3 watt incandescent bulbs:
https://www.bulbtown.com/3_Watt_s/449.htm (https://www.bulbtown.com/3_Watt_s/449.htm)

All the best...
Thank you thank you thank you!
A great selection and great prices.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on July 31, 2019, 03:55:10 AM
Thank you thank you thank you!
A great selection and great prices.
Send some to Rick! ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2019, 04:14:47 AM
Send some to Rick! ;)
Rick can get his own dim bulbs.
I'm ecstatic about this site because they have odd things like 28 volt #327 instrument bulbs, and all the different letter varieties of NE-2 neons, for very reasonable prices.
I have to pay over two dollars a piece for a brake light bulb in the car parts stores, and they sell them for 48 cents.

I still want to know if Rick's LED bulbs have the MAX16820 chip in there.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 31, 2019, 04:47:28 AM

Assuming each red led is at 2 volts and 20ma = 40 mw consumption per red led = 0.04 watts.
Therefore 25  red leds = 1 watt consumption. We have over 50 of these so we have to add a further 2 watts output to our calculations in addition to the 1/2 watt lit mr16s. (he he)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on July 31, 2019, 05:23:31 AM
That's a big part of the problem Aking... folks making assumptions about how much current, voltage, and/or power their LED's are using.


I can tell you from experience, and by comparison to the background lighting, that none of those LEDs are anywhere near their full brightness. Try lighting a discrete LED with 5mA of current...I think you may be shocked at how bright it can be.


So, it is more likely 2mA, x 1.8V = 3.6mW
and... 3.6mW x 50 LEDs = 180mW.


-OR-


5mA x 1.8V = 9mW
x 50 = 450mW
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 06:15:37 AM
You guys are just against OU. As Stefan says, you just flame over and over. People don't do that unless they want to suppress something. You offer nothing useful here. You have not participated in anything but the flaming. That's it. I do not have to do anything. I'm not obligated to any of you. You make your demands and insults, but what do you show? Nothing. No information. Just attacks. I am just freely sharing information. Just what "must" I "start" doing? I can't bring you here to prove something. You attack me about meters. I show meters. You then just say meters are nothing anyway. But I said from the start you can't prove anything with a meter, with or without meters. Anyone confirming a claim for or against OU still doesn't prove anything to anyone else but themselves. You can have 100 people saying they prove or disprove something to themselves. Still means nothing. Get it through your head people, this is just information sharing.
I am giving you general things to consider. I gave you the heart of the matter, the principles of free energy. I answered everyone each question but you don't answer mine. I pointed to Barrett but you just ignore this while calling me ignorant. You guys are the ignorant ones who show nothing either. Just mention some guy who we are supposed to just accept. I give you a real leading authority who listed solid evidence from history and reputable sources. What I am doing is showing you in crude form these things, but also the math as well. It is above every one of you no doubt and that is why you are all silent. I give you a little bit to see what you do with it. You insult and demand more. I watch you all squirm around here. You want more, then answer my questions first. You wanted more, I gave you an exact meter reading. You want meters I gave you one. Not the one you wanted, but I already gave you the ones you want. You don't pay attention to details already give. I gave a very significant scope shot and you all missed it. If you want to replicate what I am showing or doing then don't be like Itsu and just read the first line and assume you know what I am saying. I shared several very significant things. You all ignore most of it. But not the silent watchers who are many now. I showed things. I explained them. I answered all the questions. I won the debates about the primary issues. And I backed up the processes with real math, even from the original Maxwell equations prior to Heaviside, Hertz, Lorenz, and Lorentz, etc. I don't see any of you putting forth such efforts like this. On top of that, I demonstrated these things to over 100,000 different people over the last 15 years! Many of which are top scientists and engineers in leading companies and government. You guys represent relatively basic engineering experience. You speak exactly that way.

I think Stefan has made things clear, just stop flaming. Spend your time sharing OU information, not anti-OU information. This forum is about OU not anti-OU. If you don't have any OU information then go find some. Report back when you have something. But just rambling over and over again about how OU is impossible, either directly or indirectly, is just being a troll. Insisting upon OU being self-running or looped is also a waste of everyone times. Insisting upon certain measurements is also unjustified and a waste of everyone's time. I have many ways to demonstrate OU without meters and with meters. Not one of you is the judge because you claim to never have experienced OU. So you don't even know what you are looking for yet. I told you I have run certain setups for years, but even that didn't matter. I even had meters on it. Yet that didn't matter either. The story keeps changing. The meters had to have exact logging for three years apparently, otherwise it was nothing at all! You guys are absolutely incredulous within your own arbitrary context. You reasoned against me in your assumptions about me, demanding that I do this or that. Assuming that I didn't already do such things and many more that you don't even understand. So when I share that I have you still don't believe anything. But I have said all along that you can't prove anything for someone else over the internet anyway. So all the flaming and trolling was for nothing anyway. All this time spent, and only a few people have posted useful information. I have written a book here of useful information. But no matter what I share you just all attack. If you didn't believe it then why ask the questions? Why not just move on to something positive? Some of you have asked and really applied some things I have shared. But you say that I must participate??? Hmmm, when have you participated? What positive contribution have you given towards OU? And just what am I not participating in? What, trying to prove something over the internet? Telling you what bulbs I use? I use many different bulbs. Again, you guys expect the world from me. You think I owe you something. You disrespect me and ignore all the important things I write. I'm not about to come under your requests. I know how to teach in these matters as I have been doing that for years. I know why you don't believe these things. Although I am not convinced that you disbelieve them at all. So I am stressing the things that you need to see. I am breaking you guys down bit by bit until you see what you need to. Eventually the principles of free energy will be understood, and people will be able to make countless OU machines. You guys are hung up on things that are not the point. The reason is because you are only here to disprove something. You have all shown that you assume I am wrong automatically. Each one of you flamers have demonstrated this many times. Naturally you are just going to argue in a circle. And therefore you have nothing positive to contribute. Others shared my work before I knew of this thread. I shared more. Others are sharing more. What more do you expect? Blood?

So come to grips with this being an information sharing only thread. Do something positive. If you can't do that, then don't waste people's time and fill up this thread with useless words. If you want more from me then answer my questions and acknowledge my answers already given. But each of you ten ore more flamers only revile and can never admit one thing. As I wrote, if that was really true that I was mistaken in everything then you would not spend any time here responding so vigorously. So the truth is that you don't want to admit any truth.

By the way, Jimbob of such and such company with 100,000+ employees laughs at your words along with everyone in the company. How silly to say such things. That is just the fallacy of appealing to authority when the person is no authority at all. No man is a judge over any other man in such matters. When I quote Barrett as a leading authority I don't engage in that fallacy as I appeal to his words, which quote solid evidence. But you guys just mention names with no substance. You therefore imply that truth and prove is to be established by mere appeals to persons and not real world facts. Thus you flamers have consistently promoted unscientific beliefs and practices here, while insulting me for not going along with that. I've just been saying all along: "Says who?" What makes your words so much more important? Who made you guys the lawgiver here? On the contrary each one of you has really embarrassed yourselves in serious self-contradiction.
Stefan,
Rick has to unterstand that nobody is against him.
But he must start to participate.
What you suggest to do next? Continue without measuring?
Just build the thing without knowing what is really happening and how  much we can pull from that system? And if we can pull more than we put in?
Because we can not find common point, can you be the one and make some decisions as neutral person.????
Suggest next steps?
Make some rules?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 06:53:34 AM
No you are the problem. You are the one that wrote on OUR forum that I am off 150 to 250 times!!! So you have proven yourself prejudice. You don't even know the bulbs Aking and I have. And you are supposed to be the expert and gatekeeper of that whole forum! I think no one else would have even said 15 to 25 times, but you wrote 150 to 250. This shows everyone that you are completely unreliable for any of this. Now if you were not set up as the grand master and self-proclaimed expert, who is not even capable of making a mistaken, then I wouldn't say all this.

Aking has the kit and bulbs so he has more of an ability to evaluate what I am doing because he can replicate it in the real world over there. You are not in either real world, mine or his. You just speculate in complete ignorance. You are just the same as Mythbusters and this is but entertainment.
You can't tell us anything from experience. You cannot prove to us that you have any experience. And you don't even know the bulbs we have. So your words are useless. Nor are they even reasonable. I already said that I have measured the bulbs and done side by side measurements, etc. You are not here so your words are empty and a waste of time. Again, I am pointing out that you are not an expert and just assume what you want here and with your claim that I am off by 150 to 250 times.

Again, if 75 little bulbs are at 2V 20ma then we would have 3W. But let's divide 75 bulbs into 0.75W. 0.01W (2V 5ma). But what about the big bulbs? I had 15 at one point at 1/2W brightness while the little bulbs were on. That's over 8W. And many more coils could have been added as everyone could see.

The point is that in the real world people could understand especially this last point. It didn't matter how many coils, they were not drawing more energy when I added more coils. This was proven to the people watching (and who were the ones setting up the coils and putting the LEDs and caps on the coils). And the picture and video were made in such a way as to make it evident that the amount of light exceeded that which was possible (given you all believing that a video can prove something like that, which I deny).

I will not give you anything more than what you need. You can prove these things to yourself. But just saying things like this adds no value to anyone. Just saying you have experience when you don't is a waste of everyone's time. You don't have experience because you were not here or there when we did our tests! In fact I picked a particular LED that could withstand high voltages and amperages and not blow out easy. It easily does 40ma. So you cannot compare one part with another in this respect. I didn't give you part numbers because I wanted to see you guys all say such things and show everyone your assumptions. I wanted everyone to see why these forums have failed for so many years. Now that is clear to everyone. Again, I didn't come here to try and prove OU to you. I don't owe you part numbers or information. But you all owe respect for members who share information about their OU experiences. But you have not shown respect, but rather have made demands with insults. So now you are on your own to figure out what you want. You are only here to commit to disproving OU. You don't show us any positive evidence for OU. Yet you set yourself up as expert. How strange! You reject Aking claiming he is making assumptions while you make your own assumptions. And you know you are doing just that, which makes it all the worse.

So again, if you don't have anything positive to say, then don't waste our time with useless comparisons. Stop suppressing people's positive testimony when you have no basis for your statements.
That's a big part of the problem Aking... folks making assumptions about how much current, voltage, and/or power their LED's are using.
I can tell you from experience, and by comparison to the background lighting, that none of those LEDs are anywhere near their full brightness. Try lighting a discrete LED with 5mA of current...I think you may be shocked at how bright it can be.
So, it is more likely 2mA, x 1.8V = 3.6mW
and... 3.6mW x 50 LEDs = 180mW.
-OR-
5mA x 1.8V = 9mW
x 50 = 450mW
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2019, 07:33:26 AM
Good grief. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 08:15:55 AM
Nice red herring fallacy.

Good grief.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 31, 2019, 11:28:30 AM
Rick Friedrich, make it better and clearer :
http://www.rexresearch.com/benitezbattycharg/benitez.html (http://www.rexresearch.com/benitezbattycharg/benitez.html)
" ...  Bedini revealed himself to not do proper and sufficient experiments..... "
".. Patrick Kelly's Free Energy book also misleads you... "

"battery killer" :calculating with conventional battery lifetime each produced/stored KWh is in the minimum15 -25 US$cents range,shortening the battery lifetime 1/3- up to 1/2 - makes the costs higher !

"FREE ENERGY WILL HELP TO HEAL THE WORLD" ,
                                              30 UScents/KWh "FREE ENERGY" ?

CO2- neutral 50% efficiency gen-sets produce, recycleable fuel !, in the 15 US$cents range.
With the israelitan inventor David Judbarovski his hydrogen concept 50% eff. gen-sets produce n the 5- 10 US$cents range !Dr.Pavel Imris static capacitive windings dynamo in the < 5 US$cents/KWh !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on July 31, 2019, 12:23:03 PM
Rick when this topic hit the forum..it had nothing to do with batteries AKing told us you had soosed ? or sorted Don Smith...and kapenadze
etc etc ?maybe even the TPU..?
this was the secret to all these devices? nothing at all about needing batteries [was my impression]

plenty here have done battery swapping experiments .could never see a Magic gain when hooked up to appropriate equipment ?
that being said ,yes it is easy to juggle batteries ...let them rest and work within battery friendly load conditions and not have to charge them as much .
..one member commented that this cycling of batteries was an old Ham radio trick from many years ago.  ...So we buy more batteries to run big loads ?
how many to run a 1KW load ?[continuous ??}
since now its about the batteries ..
I think most here were not too interested since you had said you no longer do these ?  you found a solid state method to harvest energy?
Don't think for one second that any builder here when presented with an experiment would not perform the experiment.And no one here is suppressing these experiments except You.
lighting fires around others to distract from the problem [lack of an experiment]not good.
  I see it is hard to explain in an open source forum something which is not open sourced ...[no experiment to prove]
  Yes members are confused by this.. If we were having this discussion in Ricks factory We would understand getting thrown out for requesting proprietary information. here we are supposed to be open source friends not customers .
Open source an experiment and stand Back and watch what happens.100% transparent investigation for all to see ,Discuss, and replicate.
But you already know that..and as of this writing ...it has not happened.
   Here in the membership are persons who would save lives with this immediately !!and yet you type ........as if we discuss cake recipes ....or knitting techniques ....or point to others and type about suppression ??YEESH !!
Chet K

  Hopefully Stefan's friend can show something special !!and all the info to replicate .
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on July 31, 2019, 12:44:16 PM
Assuming each red led is at 2 volts and 20ma = 40 mw consumption per red led = 0.04 watts.
Therefore 25  red leds = 1 watt consumption. We have over 50 of these so we have to add a further 2 watts output to our calculations in addition to the 1/2 watt lit mr16s. (he he)

I only see 11 leds being lit.  I agree there are probably 50 coils but most of them don't seem to be connected to anything.  So the claim of lighting 50 leds doesn't seem to be correct.
Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 31, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.labsphere.com/site/assets/files/2570/the-radiometry-of-light-emitting-diodes-leds.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi97YKEjN_jAhWnxIUKHRqhB3AQFggQMAA&usg=AOvVaw0hdJdpgSoCQnk5SqzH6I8N (https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.labsphere.com/site/assets/files/2570/the-radiometry-of-light-emitting-diodes-leds.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi97YKEjN_jAhWnxIUKHRqhB3AQFggQMAA&usg=AOvVaw0hdJdpgSoCQnk5SqzH6I8N)
linear versus progressive :
viewing angle 60°/30° : 4 times the power

We can do experiments -at first- for a better private household " light generator" ! Beginning with small steps. !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 31, 2019, 02:12:25 PM
I only see 11 leds being lit.  I agree there are probably 50 coils but most of them don't seem to be connected to anything.  So the claim of lighting 50 leds doesn't seem to be correct.
Carroll
Again an assumption without any facts.  If you could be BOTHERED to go to the video, Rick disconnects his camera and does closeups on the coils so you can see the leds lit.


And here is another fact. Rick's leds are much dimmer than comparable leds, which is why I swapped them for superbright leds.
However Rick's leds are more durable.  I have only lost one of Rick's leds but several superbright ones.  If you make a supposedly scientific comment then you should double check your science or you do not come over as credible.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 31, 2019, 02:18:03 PM
Chet,I allow in my calculation a battery/capacitor for the " starting 'kick'", because actually battery and charger and con-/inverter makes such continous use systems to expensive. !
Motor and transformer need also for the first process beginning cycles high current draw :without "inrush current limiter" - up to 20 times the nominal current value
Aliernatively the ancient ic-mobile starting device : hand-curbe
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on July 31, 2019, 02:19:06 PM
Stefan: the notion of batteries in the circuit is an important one.  If you go to Rick's video on the Heavyside component he
explains the science there.  And again it is a secret revealed.
The use of capacitors as comparable (as some experimenters have done) is just ignorance of the experimenter who knows nothing about this ou science.
When it coms to capacitors there is much experimentation to be done.  For example reforming capacitors and conditioning them ( and conditioning batteries) is an important aspect of this science.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2019, 02:22:57 PM
Nice red herring fallacy.

How can an image of YOUR POSTS be a "fallacy"?  Seek help, Rick.
Meanwhile, either demonstrate the truth of this claim, or admit that it is false:

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 31, 2019, 02:27:37 PM
Stefan: the notion of batteries in the circuit is an important one.  If you go to Rick's video on the Heavyside component he
explains the science there.  And again it is a secret revealed.
The use of capacitors as comparable is just ignorance of the experimenter who knows nothing about this ou science.
When it coms to capacitors there is much experimentation to be done.  For example reforming capacitors and conditioning them  and conditioning batteries is an important aspect of this science.
My hope for the future is that these developments


https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/research-news/battery-lasts-200000-cycles-2016-05/ (https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/research-news/battery-lasts-200000-cycles-2016-05/)

 and /or
https://memoori.com/biosolar-announces-disruptive-super-battery-54-per-kwh/ (https://memoori.com/biosolar-announces-disruptive-super-battery-54-per-kwh/)
will become fast (+- 5 years) available on market by fair prices !
50000 cycles/ 1 charge cycle per day : 137 years
                          4                                            34
54 US$/50000 cycles : 0,0011 US$  per cycle or 0,12 cent/cycle

54 US$ : production price or  fob factory     consumer price?


Alvin Marks calculated his Quantum Energy Storage with < 25 US$ / KW market price (1997)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=6501093B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20021231&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=6501093B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20021231&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
Referring in citing documents : http://capacitorsciences.com/ (http://capacitorsciences.com/)

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.bollore.com/bollo-content/uploads/2018/01/09-28-16-bluesolutions-capacitorsciences-uk.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiVlZSmnt_jAhVJcBQKHfQRDr44ChAWCBUwBA&usg=AOvVaw3ekmTeNeUSSYiAHIkHo1yr (https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.bollore.com/bollo-content/uploads/2018/01/09-28-16-bluesolutions-capacitorsciences-uk.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiVlZSmnt_jAhVJcBQKHfQRDr44ChAWCBUwBA&usg=AOvVaw3ekmTeNeUSSYiAHIkHo1yr)

https://www.scienceandtechnologyresearchnews.com/newly-devised-static-negative-capacitor-could-improve-computing/
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 03:10:50 PM
Assuming each red led is ...

Hi a.king. That is exactly the problem, as you should be fully aware of by now.
You simply can't make assumptions about input power and output power.
This is something which has to be measured properly.

Also, the fact that Stefan says that he thinks you need a battery in there for the system
to 'work', is another potential warning sign to me, because if it doesn't work with super caps or ordinary caps,
then that seems to indicate that the current draw from the battery may actually be higher than is being assumed/stated.

At any rate, all these assumptions about LED power consumption is very counter-productive.
If people are afraid or can't do proper power measurements, at least power some 1 to 3 Watt incandescent bulbs
instead, and then see how the bulbs light. Any demonstration with LEDs is just not at all helpful, as I
pointed out several times already that they can be very misleading and tend to fool a lot of inexperienced people, as
they can glow quite brightly while actually consuming only a relatively very small amount of power.
Any demonstration using LEDs is really of no practical help at all.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 03:23:58 PM
You guys are just against OU.

Hi Rick. That is just plain silly. Actually, members here who have a lot of experience at analyzing circuits
have made it clear that without proper measurements there is just no way to really know how those circuits are
actually performing. Really though, there should be no reason why these setups can't be self-looped, as that
is a no nonsense test which separates the wheat from the chaff.

I can tell you this. If I had a setup which I thought was showing OU, I would 100% try to self-loop it.
I would do this because I am actually interested in knowing what the actual truth is. It really should be relatively
simple to setup, and you have said yourself in one of your videos that self-looping your setup should
be able to self-power your generator.

Any demonstration using LEDs and which does not at least show proper measurements is
pretty much pointless. Is that really so hard for people to understand? It should really be self-evident here.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 31, 2019, 03:46:35 PM
Start point A                to                  Meta/Finishpoint B : 10 meters
10 Km/ h fast human velocity : from A to B 1/1000 hour ;


human KWh per hour : 80 Wh /1000 = 0,08 Wh energy for 10 meters

Stand point A : I or else with full gasoline 5 Liter can/ister and bringing the 5 Liter gasoline can/ister full to Meta/Finish point B

50000 Wh ~ 5 Liter gasoline
                50000 Wh : 0,08 Wh = work performance A-B
                                                   C.O.P. 625000

                                        using humans like simple machines
 f.e.heat from start point A to Meta/Finish point B transporting  devices                                 
                                              called heat pump or fridge
In energetischer Bilanzaufstellung : Idioten !


 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 31, 2019, 04:06:43 PM
Hi you lot  :D lets stand back a moment and ask what are the risks ir Rick F comes out and declares full blown that he has free energy devices in kit form for sail hmm?

This site is open to any one to view on the plant, and only recently John Badini and his brother have left the planet under mysterious
circumstances and then you have Steven Greer talking about free energy devices being directly related to the existence of ET's and anti gravity and the 'Men in Black' appearing out of know where in open spaces and using so called death threats
and inventors disappearing or eradicated ect.
I mean would you behave much different to Rick Richard M Fried Hmm for F sake ? be realistic so if it works or not you ain't going
to get proof with the way things are! :-X
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 04:13:02 PM
Hi you lot  :D …

Hi Raycathode. Thanks, but you are just not helping with silliness like that.   :(
I could swear RF seems to be hypnotizing people... ;)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on July 31, 2019, 04:59:31 PM
Hi you lot  :D lets stand back a moment and ask what are the risks ir Rick F comes out and declares full blown that he has free energy devices in kit form for sail hmm?

This site is open to any one to view on the plant, and only recently John Badini and his brother have left the planet under mysterious
circumstances and then you have Steven Greer talking about free energy devices being directly related to the existence of ET's and anti gravity and the 'Men in Black' appearing out of know where in open spaces and using so called death threats
and inventors disappearing or eradicated ect.
I mean would you behave much different to Rick Richard M Fried Hmm for F sake ? be realistic so if it works or not you ain't going
to get proof with the way things are! :-X
That's strange idea to post since Rick has already said in his video that you could power the input with the power from one of the outputs.  So he is already claiming OU.  But he refuses to offer any evidence to support that claim.  I am not doubting there are those that don't want free energy or OU to be widely available to the masses.  But Rick's videos so far don't support his claims of OU so I don't think he has anything to worry about.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 31, 2019, 05:01:52 PM
About
Quote
VOID:  I can tell you this. If I had a setup which I thought was showing OU, I would 100% try to self-loop it. 

Here I got som tip's from lancaIV once:

https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg528437/#msg528437
https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg528443/#msg528443

And I started to build and test these.


Quote
Re: Split Flux Transformer
« Reply #55 on: January 09, 2019, 11:52:50 PM »
Quote
Today I have conducted some tests with the aim of better accuracy and comparison.

1) I did first a test with the original 5 leg trafo measured with both my Fluke multimeter and with my Oscilloscope. See below.

2) Then a test with a Special 5 leg trafo where the two cross flux legs (U-cores) are fitted between the primarys and the secondary.
This rises the output voltage but lower the OU effect!

3) And at last a test with a normal transformer konfig,.

All tests are at 10 kHz.  And the load resistos are chosen so they reduces the free "swinging" output voltage to about halv  that voltage,  in all tests.

1a)  5-leg               FLUKE      IN:  1,95 V   0,95 mA     74 degrees        OUT:  1,162 V    107,1 %                        10KHz      Load 2469 Ohm
1b)  5-leg               SCOPE     IN:  3,4 V     3,4   mA     74 degrees        OUT:  2,04 V      105,8 %     1,68 mW      10 kHz     Load 2469 Ohm

2)   5-leg  Special   SCOPE     IN:  3,37 V  3,0 mA       70,4 degrees      OUT:  2,72 V      104,75 %    3,56 mW      10 kHz     Load 2080 Ohm

3)   Normal trafo    SCOPE     IN:  3,11 V  10,85 mA    58,25 degrees   OUT:  2,99 V       98,9  %      17,56 mW     10 kHz     Load 509 Ohm
 
                                                                                                                      percent Efficiency


I tried to loop 1 a, b) with a single BC -transistor after that (but I don't remember exactly how).
 Kick started it with a short sinus burst and it oscillated then for 15-30 seconds.

The two input primaries (5-legged trafo) can be series or parallel
All coils 100+100 turns,  0.3 mm (#28).
(And it dosn't matter that the coils are much wider than the cores, only for test purposes here. Tighter is better of course)
Cores : KÖNIG ELECTRONIC FAT100, Smooth blank ferrite

This is confirmation-of-OU-devices-and-claims
Is this OU? Try it!

Regards Arne

N.B.  No LED's !!!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2019, 05:31:03 PM
In all fairness, and giving the benefit of doubt to RF, I believe his statement from the video says that he can power the _frequency generator_ with output from one or several receiver coils. But recall that the FG is just supplying the clock signal to the mosfet driver chip, yes? And the main power being switched by the mosfet driver chip is coming from a power supply or battery, am I right?

So the claim isn't actually a claim of complete self looping, if he isn't claiming to power the _whole system_ from just the output of a few coils. That is, if I am interpreting his statement correctly. All he is claiming is that the frequency generator itself can be so powered.


But I still don't think he can do even that.


Please correct me if I am wrong! I would be very happy if RF is actually claiming to be able to run the whole system from the output of one or several receiver coils... because I know for sure he certainly cannot do that!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on July 31, 2019, 05:32:15 PM
Well this works Dr Sriffler used this device at one stage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DmAyYhnRgc
I even got it to work with a sig gen and some leds and some re wound Ferox surplus ferrite rods, some of the other guys at work were impressed.

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2019, 05:48:20 PM
Got what to work? I didn't see anything remarkable or unusual in that video, other than the rather...er... sketchy measurement methodology. And of course the schematic does not seem to be available any more at the given link.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9wxuRZV-Ro

But is it OU?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2019, 06:05:51 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPt7xbmHXfY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPt7xbmHXfY)


But is it OU?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2019, 06:37:39 PM
This video is a lot longer than I usually like to present, at 14:20. It is relevant here for a number of reasons. Topic, presentation, details, measurements, explanations, scoposcopy, et cetera. Anyone skilled in the art can replicate fully from the information in this one video.

The original circuit and the effect are from forum member Aye-Aye. Here I demonstrate the Aye-Aye Negative Charging effect, and use it to demonstrate a few items of scoposcopy, in addition to explaining where the charging is coming from. Although I do not demonstrate it in this video, there is enough power coming in for a high-efficiency boost converter-battery charger chip to accumulate it for practical use... like lighting up a LED or two.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUMb6e6QQIA

But.... is it OU?



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 06:45:52 PM
In all fairness, and giving the benefit of doubt to RF, I believe his statement from the video says that he can power the _frequency generator_ with output from one or several receiver coils. But recall that the FG is just supplying the clock signal to the mosfet driver chip, yes? And the main power being switched by the mosfet driver chip is coming from a power supply or battery, am I right?
So the claim isn't actually a claim of complete self looping, if he isn't claiming to power the _whole system_ from just the output of a few coils. That is, if I am interpreting his statement correctly. All he is claiming is that the frequency generator itself can be so powered.
But I still don't think he can do even that.
Please correct me if I am wrong! I would be very happy if RF is actually claiming to be able to run the whole system from the output of one or several receiver coils... because I know for sure he certainly cannot do that!

Hi TK. It's all pointless, as it is clear that Rick will avoid any sort of proper testing and
measurements which would determine how his setup is really performing. We will have to wait for
Stefan and his friend to possibly do a demo it seems, and hopefully they will avoid using LEDs and
at least use small 1 to 3 Watt or so incandescent bulbs, and also attempt to self-loop it to see
how it performs in a self-looped arrangement.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 06:49:59 PM
POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:

1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.

2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.

3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

These points are settled because of my contribution to this forum. This is no small contribution. They are fundamentals to energy forums which most people have been mistaken on since the beginning of the Internet. Some of you are still contradicting these truths directly and indirectly and are wasting everyone's time with your assumptions otherwise. I have not been given any credit for pointing these things out and have instead been subjected to coordinated personal attacks. Little if no retractions have been made by people who have contradicted these points which means thousands of posts have filled this thread based upon faulty assumptions that contradict these. Each person that continues to stand by their contradictions in these and related matters and is not willing to admit they have been fundamentally wrong is insincere and no doubt a troublemaker.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 07:17:18 PM
You have mistaken assumptions. There is a difference between ideal or advanced systems and simple beginner systems. I deal with all levels of people in this research. People here do not even believe in Over unity and only know basic level math and engineering (I have seen no evidence from anyone otherwise). While batteries take a little longer to evaluate, they are easy to use for many experiments. They are different than capacitors which are not suitable substitutes.
Your statement that "plenty here have done battery swapping experiments could never see a Magic gain when hooked up to appropriate equipment" means very little to me considering that you all have been wrong in these:
POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

Thousands of people all over the world have had gains from battery systems long before you people made attempts. I have addressed why people fail to understand their own meters and mistakes with using batteries in great detail. Go back and read to find the answers.

My systems are many and I have addressed several here. They are not limited to batteries. Several of you have lumped everything I have said into one system, but that just shows you are not paying attention.

Rick when this topic hit the forum..it had nothing to do with batteries AKing told us you had soosed ? or sorted Don Smith...and kapenadze
etc etc ?maybe even the TPU..?
this was the secret to all these devices? nothing at all about needing batteries [was my impression]
plenty here have done battery swapping experiments .could never see a Magic gain when hooked up to appropriate equipment ?
that being said ,yes it is easy to juggle batteries ...let them rest and work within battery friendly load conditions and not have to charge them as much .
..one member commented that this cycling of batteries was an old Ham radio trick from many years ago.  ...So we buy more batteries to run big loads ?
how many to run a 1KW load ?[continuous ??}
since now its about the batteries ..
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on July 31, 2019, 07:25:12 PM
People are wondering where I am. Well I really don't have the time for this right now. I only lingered on for so long here because I had to bring things to a completion. I spent way more time on all this than I should have. I don't regret it, but I have too much business to attend to to worry about these little children playing games. It's been really funny at times. But it just goes nowhere. If I come back in another 5 years I'm sure everyone will be exactly in the same places as before. Maybe moved on to another personality.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 07:27:13 PM
Another reason for using those LEDs I have mentioned before, is that they show sensitive changes. My objective was not OU demonstration with this kit but was for people to learn the topological relationships that T. W. Barrett addressed that were truncated from the original Maxwell equations. Skeptics here just want to limit themselves to the truncated math and linear relationships while pretending to be open to over unity science. The LED works fine for seeing subtle changes. And once you understand that you can move on to bigger systems. But jumping ahead without taking the time to learn the principles of free energy will get you nowhere.

Again an assumption without any facts.  If you could be BOTHERED to go to the video, Rick disconnects his camera and does closeups on the coils so you can see the leds lit.


And here is another fact. Rick's leds are much dimmer than comparable leds, which is why I swapped them for superbright leds.
However Rick's leds are more durable.  I have only lost one of Rick's leds but several superbright ones.  If you make a supposedly scientific comment then you should double check your science or you do not come over as credible.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 07:27:58 PM
POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.
These points are settled because of my contribution to this forum. This is no small contribution. They are fundamentals to energy forums which most people have been mistaken on since the beginning of the Internet. Some of you are still contradicting these truths directly and indirectly and are wasting everyone's time with your assumptions otherwise. I have not been given any credit for pointing these things out and have instead been subjected to coordinated personal attacks. Little if no retractions have been made by people who have contradicted these points which means thousands of posts have filled this thread based upon faulty assumptions that contradict these. Each person that continues to stand by their contradictions in these and related matters and is not willing to admit they have been fundamentally wrong is insincere and no doubt a troublemaker.

Hi Rick. All the false and misleading statements and deflections and excuses in the world will not
ever change the facts of the situation. Unless proper measurements or self-looping testing is done, then the
actual performance of any such setups remains unknown. The use of LED lights in such an arrangement is no
real practical help at all. If it is claimed that the LED lights are consuming about 1 Watt or more, then
there should be no reason that those LED lights can't be replaced with 1 to 3 Watt incandescent bulbs.
I have posted a weblink here to a web store which sells such small incandescent bulbs.

Resistance is futile... the truth will prevail. Only proper testing will show how these setups really perform. ;)

P.S. If you or others are not making any claims about seeing more average power out than the average input power
with such a setup, then I don't understand what the point is here.
This is overunity.com, and this is an open source forum. :)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 07:32:14 PM
Take the time to type in "red herring fallacy" into google and see. This is what you continually do.


How can an image of YOUR POSTS be a "fallacy"?  Seek help, Rick.
Meanwhile, either demonstrate the truth of this claim, or admit that it is false:
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 07:39:44 PM
Void,
I have addressed these points many times and again today. You of all people should not talk about proper LED measurements when you blundered so bad the other week. You need to come to grips with this still:
POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

Quote from: rickfriedrich on Today at 06:15:37 AM
"You guys are just against OU."
Hi Rick. That is just plain silly. Actually, members here who have a lot of experience at analyzing circuits have made it clear that without proper measurements there is just no way to really know how those circuits are actually performing. Really though, there should be no reason why these setups can't be self-looped, as that is a no nonsense test which separates the wheat from the chaff.

I can tell you this. If I had a setup which I thought was showing OU, I would 100% try to self-loop it.
I would do this because I am actually interested in knowing what the actual truth is. It really should be relatively simple to setup, and you have said yourself in one of your videos that self-looping your setup should be able to self-power your generator.

Any demonstration using LEDs and which does not at least show proper measurements is pretty much pointless. Is that really so hard for people to understand? It should really be self-evident here.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on July 31, 2019, 07:45:53 PM
Can someone point me to or provide me with a reasonably clear schematic and any essential build details of
the most basic form of such a circuit arrangement as is being discussed here which should be showing over unity,
or at least showing something unusual?

I would be happy to build and test such an arrangement as long as I don't have to wind a whole table top pile 
of coils. If there is a simpler form of this arrangement which shows an unusual effect, I will take the time to
build and test it.

All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 07:47:14 PM
If my videos or words here were useless then why are they such a hot topic that have resulted in people making such strong attacks in manifest contradiction? You don't understand what evidence is, nor how I give evidence because you have not come to grips with the following:

POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

That's strange idea to post since Rick has already said in his video that you could power the input with the power from one of the outputs.  So he is already claiming OU.  But he refuses to offer any evidence to support that claim.  I am not doubting there are those that don't want free energy or OU to be widely available to the masses.  But Rick's videos so far don't support his claims of OU so I don't think he has anything to worry about.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 07:55:35 PM
This is another example of T coming in way late in the debate to pull another red herring again. Yes a diversion from the point at hand, out of context point to distract people from what is important. There is already video on that but since that is not the point then it does not matter. When I brought this up I did say exactly that, that it is merely a logic signal into the gate driver, so it is nothing to consider.
Again, it is a waste of parts to try and forcibly loop the output around in such ways when you could instead to a sympathetic resonance setup as I have mentioned. What good is it if I spend all my efforts to make something merely run itself without any useful load in the end? If you want to do that there are easier ways of doing that.

In all fairness, and giving the benefit of doubt to RF, I believe his statement from the video says that he can power the _frequency generator_ with output from one or several receiver coils. But recall that the FG is just supplying the clock signal to the mosfet driver chip, yes? And the main power being switched by the mosfet driver chip is coming from a power supply or battery, am I right?

So the claim isn't actually a claim of complete self looping, if he isn't claiming to power the _whole system_ from just the output of a few coils. That is, if I am interpreting his statement correctly. All he is claiming is that the frequency generator itself can be so powered.


But I still don't think he can do even that.


Please correct me if I am wrong! I would be very happy if RF is actually claiming to be able to run the whole system from the output of one or several receiver coils... because I know for sure he certainly cannot do that!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 08:07:58 PM
Like I wrote Void, you are void of truth. You will not admit the following:
POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

Yes, everything communicated over the internet will remain unknown to everyone but those who are in the real world doing the measuring over time. Proper measurements have been done, as well as self-looping.

You are right in a way you did not intend: "resistance is futile" in reactance OU circuits. That's kind of the point I've been making. But I am not saying you can't put resistive loads on the final outputs.

Hi Rick. All the false and misleading statements and deflections and excuses in the world will not
ever change the facts of the situation. Unless proper measurements or self-looping testing is done, then the actual performance of any such setups remains unknown. The use of LED lights in such an arrangement is no real practical help at all. If it is claimed that the LED lights are consuming about 1 Watt or more, then there should be no reason that those LED lights can't be replaced with 1 to 3 Watt incandescent bulbs. I have posted a weblink here to a web store which sells such small incandescent bulbs.

Resistance is futile... the truth will prevail. Only proper testing will show how these setups really perform. ;)

P.S. If you or others are not making any claims about seeing more average power out than the average input power with such a setup, then I don't understand what the point is here.
This is overunity.com, and this is an open source forum. :)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on July 31, 2019, 08:53:49 PM
GROUNDS FOR ELECTRICAL OVER UNITY RESEARCH:

"The conventional Maxwell theory is a classical linear theory in which the scalar and vector potentials appear to be arbitrary and defined by boundary conditions and choice of gauge. The conventional wisdom in engineering is that potentials have only mathematical, not physical, significance. However, besides the case of quantum theory, in which it is well known that the potentials are physical constructs, there are a number of physical phenomena—both classical and quantum-mechanical—which indicate that the Aµ fields, µ=0,1,2,3, do possess physical significance as global-to-local operators or gauge fields, in precisely constrained topologies." Barrett 2008, Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism.

2. "Tesla's approach to electrical engineering addresses primarily the reactive part of electromagnetic field-matter interactions, rather than the resistive part. His approach is more comparable with the physics of nonlinear optics and many-body systems than with that of single body systems. It is fundamentally a nonlinear approach and may be contrasted with the approach of mainstream electrical engineering, both linear and nonlinear. The nonlinear aspects of mainstream EE are based on feedback in the resistive field, whereas the nonlinearity in Tesla's approach is based on oscillators using to-and-fro shuttling of energy to capacitive stores through non-circuit elements attached to circuits. These oscillator-shuttle-circuit connections result in adiabatic nonlinearities in the complete oscillator-shuttle-circuit systems (OSCs). As a development of this approach, 3-wave, 4-wave...n-wave mixing is proposed here using OSC devices rather than laser-matter interactions. The interactions of oscillator-shuttles (OS) and circuits (C) to which they are attached as monopoles forming OSCs are not describable by Kirchhoff's and Ohm's laws. It is suggested that in the OSC formulation, floating grounds are functionally independent and do not function as common grounds. Tesla employed, rather, a concept of multiple grounds for energy storage and removal by oscillator-shuttles which cannot be fitted in the simple monolithic circuit format, permitting a many-body definition of the internal activity of device subsystems which act at different phase relations. This concept is the basis for his polyphase system of energy transfer. The Tesla OSCs are analogs of quaternionic systems.... It is shown that Tesla's OSC approach is more appropriately (succinctly) described in A four potential form, than in E, H, B and D field form or by Ohm's law. That is, the boundary conditions are of crucial importance in defining the functioning of OSCs." Tesla's nonlinear oscillator-shuttle-circuit (OSC) theory. By T. W. Barrett. 1991. Compared with linear, nonlinear-feedback and nonlinear-element electrical engineering circuit theory.

IMPLICATION:
All reasoning and metering that limits all circuitry or systems to such "resistive," "singular" or "linear theory" is arbitrary, circular, immature and unscientific. This is the substance of most disproof claims on this thread. My responses have exposed this as such.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on July 31, 2019, 10:01:35 PM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305636853_Tesla's_nonlinear_oscillator-shuttle-circuit_OSC_theory_compared_with_linear_nonlinear-feedback_and_nonlinear-element_electrical_engineering_circuit_theory
Fazit : there is a need to measure and calculate : Joule/ cycle
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: partzman on July 31, 2019, 10:49:13 PM
GROUNDS FOR ELECTRICAL OVER UNITY RESEARCH:

"The conventional Maxwell theory is a classical linear theory in which the scalar and vector potentials appear to be arbitrary and defined by boundary conditions and choice of gauge. The conventional wisdom in engineering is that potentials have only mathematical, not physical, significance. However, besides the case of quantum theory, in which it is well known that the potentials are physical constructs, there are a number of physical phenomena—both classical and quantum-mechanical—which indicate that the Aµ fields, µ=0,1,2,3, do possess physical significance as global-to-local operators or gauge fields, in precisely constrained topologies." Barrett 2008, Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism.

2. "Tesla's approach to electrical engineering addresses primarily the reactive part of electromagnetic field-matter interactions, rather than the resistive part. His approach is more comparable with the physics of nonlinear optics and many-body systems than with that of single body systems. It is fundamentally a nonlinear approach and may be contrasted with the approach of mainstream electrical engineering, both linear and nonlinear. The nonlinear aspects of mainstream EE are based on feedback in the resistive field, whereas the nonlinearity in Tesla's approach is based on oscillators using to-and-fro shuttling of energy to capacitive stores through non-circuit elements attached to circuits. These oscillator-shuttle-circuit connections result in adiabatic nonlinearities in the complete oscillator-shuttle-circuit systems (OSCs). As a development of this approach, 3-wave, 4-wave...n-wave mixing is proposed here using OSC devices rather than laser-matter interactions. The interactions of oscillator-shuttles (OS) and circuits (C) to which they are attached as monopoles forming OSCs are not describable by Kirchhoff's and Ohm's laws. It is suggested that in the OSC formulation, floating grounds are functionally independent and do not function as common grounds. Tesla employed, rather, a concept of multiple grounds for energy storage and removal by oscillator-shuttles which cannot be fitted in the simple monolithic circuit format, permitting a many-body definition of the internal activity of device subsystems which act at different phase relations. This concept is the basis for his polyphase system of energy transfer. The Tesla OSCs are analogs of quaternionic systems.... It is shown that Tesla's OSC approach is more appropriately (succinctly) described in A four potential form, than in E, H, B and D field form or by Ohm's law. That is, the boundary conditions are of crucial importance in defining the functioning of OSCs." Tesla's nonlinear oscillator-shuttle-circuit (OSC) theory. By T. W. Barrett. 1991. Compared with linear, nonlinear-feedback and nonlinear-element electrical engineering circuit theory.

IMPLICATION:
All reasoning and metering that limits all circuitry or systems to such "resistive," "singular" or "linear theory" is arbitrary, circular, immature and unscientific. This is the substance of most disproof claims on this thread. My responses have exposed this as such.

And exactly where does Barrett specify that the Tesla OSC's are OU?

Pm
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2019, 11:50:17 PM
Isn't it amazing? The most amazing property of Rick's OU is that it can tell the difference between test equipment with calibrated loads, and random fans, batteries and LEDs! The random fans, batteries and LEDs all show OU according to him, but the test equipment doesn't and actually _cannot_, apparently.

But can Rick actually power his Frequency Generator from the output of one or several receiver coils, as he himself said in one of his videos? Or is he too busy running away from Red Herrings?




Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 12:19:07 AM
Ok Red! I'm running!  :o
Isn't it amazing? The most amazing property of Rick's OU is that it can tell the difference between test equipment with calibrated loads, and random fans, batteries and LEDs! The random fans, batteries and LEDs all show OU according to him, but the test equipment doesn't and actually _cannot_, apparently.

But can Rick actually power his Frequency Generator from the output of one or several receiver coils, as he himself said in one of his videos? Or is he too busy running away from Red Herrings?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on August 01, 2019, 12:31:25 AM
Ok Red! I'm running!  :o

The best I've heard lately on this topic.  ;D
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 12:32:10 AM
Not necessarily. If something was self-looped then there would not need to be a measurement. We don't measure the sunshine to determine if it is there.
My point is not against measuring but against making baseless universal statements made by people who don't even understand how to measure these things. There are different meters to measure different things, but all of them are made by people for specific conditions and circumstances.

Fazit : there is a need to measure and calculate : Joule/ cycle
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 01, 2019, 12:45:44 AM
You guys might be interested in this John Badini video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4tO0kBOzqk&t=116s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGz4QHJ0e4
Void AG was interested in showing us these two videos and JB's video 7 but the second video is important
I suggest you make a point in watching it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on August 01, 2019, 12:46:05 AM
I'm running! 

Yes, that has been obvious for quite a while already.  ;D
I asked for a basic schematic and any essential build details for a basic setup which
could show OU or anything unusual at all, so I could build it and test with it, and got nothing
back in response from Rick...

Running... from the truth, it would appear... ;)
Really, self-loop testing is nothing to be afraid of at all, unless of course you already know it will fail
such a test, so that is why you are avoiding showing such a test.

Hopefully Stefan will show such a demo... I will be interested to see the results of a self-loop test.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 01, 2019, 12:54:35 AM
This is not a Red Herring, it is an unambiguous claim that Rick can run his Frequency Generator on the output of one or several of his receiver coils. A claim that is unsupported by even the slightest attempt at demonstration.

So Rick Friedrich can just make all kinds of wild claims, post his RED HERRINGS to try to distract everybody from the FACT that he cannot do what he claimed to be able to do. That's a new standard for OU, for sure!







Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 01, 2019, 01:06:30 AM
Ok Red! I'm running!  :o
You claim in your Red Herring graphic that my videos are "fictions". Yet everything in them is supported by demonstrations and checkable facts, and full information is provided for anyone to repeat what I've shown. Of course you would not know that since you have not watched them.

 That is, my videos are not "fictions".... but yours definitely are, since nobody can reproduce what you claim, your information is incomplete, and your delivery is amateurish and boring.



Now, are you going to demonstrate running your FG from the output of one or several receiver coils, or are you going to admit that that claim was a great FICTION and you cannot do it?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 01, 2019, 01:55:53 AM
Seaad made a claim of anomalous energy [post 1770 in this topic] ,it got bypassed here and I am bumping the spot where it first got posted ,seems a Thane Heinz derivative ,and if I am not mistaken
Seaad wrote here somewhere he has filed for a patent on this claim. [if I am wrong please correct me]
topic here https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg537900/#msg537900 (https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg537900/#msg537900)
  Chet K
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 01, 2019, 02:19:30 AM
About
Here I got som tip's from lancaIV once:

https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg528437/#msg528437 (https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg528437/#msg528437)
https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg528443/#msg528443 (https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg528443/#msg528443)

And I started to build and test these.

                                                                                                                      percent Efficiency


I tried to loop 1 a, b) with a single BC -transistor after that (but I don't remember exactly how).
 Kick started it with a short sinus burst and it oscillated then for 15-30 seconds.

The two input primaries (5-legged trafo) can be series or parallel
All coils 100+100 turns,  0.3 mm (#28).
(And it dosn't matter that the coils are much wider than the cores, only for test purposes here. Tighter is better of course)
Cores : KÖNIG ELECTRONIC FAT100, Smooth blank ferrite

This is confirmation-of-OU-devices-and-claims
Is this OU? Try it!

Regards Arne

N.B.  No LED's !!!


I believe this is what you were working on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8NunH9TzFk&list=PLFEHIlsTyqx_KlRsYA8NKBOwtNoYh7AGk
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 02:36:18 AM
Yeah running from your fallacies.
I already posted things for 15 years now. Guess you are not reading.
And lest we forget the kind of testing you do  :o

Yes, that has been obvious for quite a while already.  ;D
I asked for a basic schematic and any essential build details for a basic setup which
could show OU or anything unusual at all, so I could build it and test with it, and got nothing
back in response from Rick...

Running... from the truth, it would appear... ;)
Really, self-loop testing is nothing to be afraid of at all, unless of course you already know it will fail
such a test, so that is why you are avoiding showing such a test.

Hopefully Stefan will show such a demo... I will be interested to see the results of a self-loop test.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 02:44:05 AM
Red,
You either have serious problems or are trying to pull another red herring!  ::) I mean, I said your highlighting of my post's "you" words was a red herring because you diverted from the points I made. You once again posted something of no significance while diverting from important things mentioned in this ongoing debate. That is a red herring. And that is what you do.
The frequency generator point is also a red herring as we all admit it takes nothing to do that and a video was posted over a year ago doing that with the kit doing that.
So you have earned the name Red, for red herring fallacy man. This is what you do here.

This is not a Red Herring, it is an unambiguous claim that Rick can run his Frequency Generator on the output of one or several of his receiver coils. A claim that is unsupported by even the slightest attempt at demonstration.

So Rick Friedrich can just make all kinds of wild claims, post his RED HERRINGS to try to distract everybody from the FACT that he cannot do what he claimed to be able to do. That's a new standard for OU, for sure!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 02:51:50 AM
We already addressed those videos. The fan one is most revealing. He has 4,000,000 views based on a fake disproof video. Look at all the likes. So what does that tell you? People want to believe what is fake, and disinfo people can count on that.
As for Bedini, he goes down as a liar that can't be trusted as I have pointed out. That video my friend took at Aaron's meeting there in 2015 or 2016 reveals one such example.

Void AG was interested in showing us these two videos and JB's video 7 but the second video is important
I suggest you make a point in watching it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 01, 2019, 02:56:41 AM
Red,
You either have serious problems or are trying to pull another red herring!  ::) I mean, I said your highlighting of my post's "you" words was a red herring because you diverted from the points I made. You once again posted something of no significance while diverting from important things mentioned in this ongoing debate. That is a red herring. And that is what you do.
The frequency generator point is also a red herring as we all admit it takes nothing to do that and a video was posted over a year ago doing that with the kit doing that.
So you have earned the name Red, for red herring fallacy man. This is what you do here.
Ah, but everything I have posted is directly relevant to the topic under discussion, which you might be able to see if you actually bothered to watch any of my videos. Other people have watched them and know exactly what I am talking about.  You can name-call and use ad-hominem fallacies all you like, but it will not change the uncomfortable fact that you cannot support your claims with valid demonstrations... and I can.

No, we don't all "admit" that it takes NOTHING to power your Function Generator, because it does not in fact take NOTHING to power it. And why don't you just post a link to that "video posted over a year ago" showing your Frequency Generator powered by one or several of your receiver coils, if that claim is true.
And now that you remind me... you also claimed that ZERO CURRENT was flowing during one of your demonstrations. But you cannot just use a charged capacitor to provide the voltage.... because current is in fact drawn and a cap will run down much faster than a battery would. So that is Yet Another bogus claim you have made without any support or even any attempt to demonstrate the truth of the claim. Because you cannot!


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on August 01, 2019, 03:09:29 AM
Seaad made a claim of anomalous energy [post 1770 in this topic] ,it got bypassed here and I am bumping the spot where it first got posted ,seems a Thane Heinz derivative ,and if I am not mistaken
Seaad wrote here somewhere he has filed for a patent on this claim. [if I am wrong please correct me]
topic here https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg537900/#msg537900 (https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg537900/#msg537900)
  Chet K

Hi Chet. I did see Seaad's comment earlier when he posted it, but unfortunately
I don't really have time to look into it myself. I have experimented with various different transformer
schemes in the past, although not this specific one, and did not see anything unusual in
my test results. I haven't tried this specific transformer arrangement previously however, so I can't say
how it might perform.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 03:29:00 AM
Red,
The first thing you did in this exchange was post a video without explaining the relevance of it. Then you get all up in arms about me not watching your other videos. You go on the immediate attack without even knowing what I had shared. This looked really foolish and my drawing a few posts back captures the spirit of all that. Then you try and trap me with question. I saw through you the whole time Red. You really failed at what you were trying to do against me. So your presence here has been but a fiction reality. Why would I spend another moment looking at your videos when you behave this way here and don't even realize what a red herring fallacy means? And you keep asking us if your videos are OU or not. So either you are trying to trap people with games or don't know yourself. If you had an important video, why did you not just post it in all seriousness. Instead you played games with us the whole time. You have not shown yourself relevant when you do such things.
Maybe you are getting some of this after all. All videos cannot be proven to be real or to properly convey the entire environment and particulars to another person not physically present. So that is fiction in a sense. To someone without access it is like fiction. But just like a movie, you can get ideas to try at home in the real world. If you have provided useful information about OU research then that would be a good thing. But you have played so many games that I don't think very many people will take you seriously. Especially when you deny the very things you write only a few posts back. That's some serious problem Red. Yeah, you only approve of high value entertainment and think that amateurish and boring videos are automatically nothing. You would reject Faraday in his day. Like I said, you are overwhelmed with a fiction existence in cyberland and need to get back to reality.

You claim in your Red Herring graphic that my videos are "fictions". Yet everything in them is supported by demonstrations and checkable facts, and full information is provided for anyone to repeat what I've shown. Of course you would not know that since you have not watched them.

 That is, my videos are not "fictions".... but yours definitely are, since nobody can reproduce what you claim, your information is incomplete, and your delivery is amateurish and boring.

Again, it is already demonstrated, and it makes no difference. I will share what I want when I have the time to do that. But why would it matter anyway. You don't believe any of this anyway. Like I wrote, if there was nothing important here you guys wouldn't be so consumed with all this and there wouldn't be 135,000 views here.

Now, are you going to demonstrate running your FG from the output of one or several receiver coils, or are you going to admit that that claim was a great FICTION and you cannot do it?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 03:56:05 AM
Red,
A fallacy is an error. You took on that name yourself by justifying it. I don't know your actual name anyway. I say all this in jest. You need to calm down and take it easy. This is after all, just an information sharing place. If you had something relevant, then you should have respectfully explained that rather than come back on here like a bulldozer and trickster as you did. You have not retracted anything you did in many many posts. So your work has zero relevance to me. Maybe if you took the time to tell people what you wish them to look at before you just demand that and insult people for not boosting up your view count and ego they may actually look.

So what is a valid demonstration Red? Something done over the internet? Are you still playing that game?

POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

Well the FG tiny input was not a concern until you pressed it and I don't take you seriously Red. I would have to take the time to look up that link and I can't be bothered at this time. If that is so important to you then I can see you are really given to red herrings. Every time I show you guys something minor like that you never acknowledge it anyway, and then just stomp on me more while making more demands. I can't prove anything over the internet anyway. You can do this very easily yourself. That is what this forum is about Red, confirming things for yourself. There is nothing special about that. Just connect a secondary coil to the input of the gate driver once it is started with the right frequency. Just don't have the coil too close as it may damage the gate driver (or put a resistor in series).

Whatever you mean in the last paragraph just amounts to a ramble. You are just getting yourself into a fit as it looks like. Not understanding what I wrote or said and then, as always, calling me bogus. Again, if I was just always bogus then you wouldn't be so interested would you? I think you are bogus so that is why I have no interest in your videos. So on the one hand many of you guys attack me as saying everything I do is bogus, but then you demand and beg for me to share more. I tell you I am not trying to prove anything but you judge me as if I am!  :o You write: "claim you have made without any support or even any attempt to demonstrate the truth of the claim." Again, I do support and demonstrate my claims in the real world in person. But you expect that through a video, which is absurd. The game is up man. It is busted for good. It's been settled since June now. The trolls have lost all their power because of that. Sitting behind a computer screen and opinionizing just doesn't have any more appeal when the realists expose that child's play.

Ah, but everything I have posted is directly relevant to the topic under discussion, which you might be able to see if you actually bothered to watch any of my videos. Other people have watched them and know exactly what I am talking about.  You can name-call and use ad-hominem fallacies all you like, but it will not change the uncomfortable fact that you cannot support your claims with valid demonstrations... and I can.

No, we don't all "admit" that it takes NOTHING to power your Function Generator, because it does not in fact take NOTHING to power it. And why don't you just post a link to that "video posted over a year ago" showing your Frequency Generator powered by one or several of your receiver coils, if that claim is true.
And now that you remind me... you also claimed that ZERO CURRENT was flowing during one of your demonstrations. But you cannot just use a charged capacitor to provide the voltage.... because current is in fact drawn and a cap will run down much faster than a battery would. So that is Yet Another bogus claim you have made without any support or even any attempt to demonstrate the truth of the claim. Because you cannot!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 01, 2019, 04:13:57 AM
Void ..I have rebooted the topic over here  https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg537909/#new (https://overunity.com/17279/split-flux-transformer/msg537909/#new)
and for clarity there are MANY who have played with this Thane type solid state device.
will be connecting with as many as possible ,I must admit I am stupified  by the idea that you can't teach on the internet ...I had no idea....

maybe somebody should let the world know ??

sounds fishy to me ??

at the topic I linked to is an example of a man who wants to teach/share and what that looks like ?
I'll make a bet he will answer every question as best he can to any builder who shows up !!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 05:11:08 AM
Fishy? Making more reference is Red Herring?  ;D

Hmmm, who said you can't teach on the internet. Now you are equivocating. You can read again:

POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

You substitute "can't teach" with "can't prove". Nice try though. Teaching is sharing information, proving is settling a matter when the conditions have been met. You didn't read the second point.  ::)

I must admit I am stupified  by the idea that you can't teach on the internet ...I had no idea....

maybe somebody should let the world know ??

sounds fishy to me ??
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 05:23:07 AM
Like I said you just prove to be a red herring. Even Itsu didn't waste his time doing that. You can write what you want, but it only shows you are given to red herrings. Just fill up the pages with repeating the same thing without adding anything of importance. Ignore the fundamental points shared. Never respond to your exposed fallacies. Fixate on a penny on the ground when some Bens are on the table in front of you.

He can't do it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 01, 2019, 09:40:23 AM
Itsu doesn't waste his time or ours by making false claims he cannot support with evidence. You do. That makes you a LIAR, Rick. And nobody can believe anything that a proven LIAR says, unless it is supported by valid evidence.


You make a claim. You cannot provide evidence that your claim is true. And I've just picked the most simple and blatant one, out of a bucket of unsupported and even proven false claims you have made. You can't do it! You won't even try, because you know you can't do it.

You can call me all the names you like, as you project your own failings onto others. That does not change the FACT that you have made claims you cannot support with evidence, nor the FACT that many of your claims have already in FACT been disproven soundly.






Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 01, 2019, 11:14:48 AM
Rick maximus Friedrich,
Come on man show your negative energy pulsing 'more out than in claim' that John Bedini showed in as his
selling point the so called 'Tom Bearden invention'! all you have to do is show it working, show them the clip
that you discuss here on this very thread and JB shows in CD no 7.

Why can't you do it ? do it man!

what's the problem ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 01, 2019, 01:14:35 PM
Rick separating teaching from Proving is something which is not in my frame of reference .,in a world that can put two people on opposite sides of the planet into the same room ,Car or street corner at the push of a button ...looking and talking together?
.... a Forum does the same thing on steroids if you really want it too...
we have different goals and that makes us chose different paths .

I truly hope Stefan's friend has a burden for his planet and the people here
you Rick play as a God ..and try to tell me its Dark outside when I'm standing in sunshine..and people die while you Fiddle.
and you can take that to the bank !!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on August 01, 2019, 02:01:19 PM
Void AG was interested in showing us these two videos and JB's video 7 but the second video is important
I suggest you make a point in watching it.

Hi Ray
At second video we see more a missunderstanding than a secret. If JB was right then at sea level there would be no opposition from the coil after collapse. Meaning there would be no inductive kickback at zero level which is wrong.  ;)

ps. To take it a little further, what about in a deep hole below sea level? Will the coil augment instead of opposing? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 01, 2019, 02:43:14 PM
here is a scope shot of my wave form my test circuit. PS i claim no originality for Nelsons idea and help

thanks Nelson.

Jeg you certainly come top of the class in levity,  it's very basic science.

I would have thought the battery idea electrons are shifted in are different (ignoring holes).
why you dig so deep ?   ;D

I was getting over 600 volts till i started de tuning it with a smaller coil it charges the 4.7uf cap instantaneously almost!
it's lethal and gives RF burns.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on August 01, 2019, 04:07:53 PM

Jeg what has a deep hole to do with don't tell me you been to the lido centre in Koln  8) 8) ;D ;D ;D


Hey Ray
I thought you were speaking about JB's idea that as we go up in height the inductive kickback grows up. He said he tested that at 2500ft and he saw an increasement due to the elevation difference from sea surface. But the reference of his coil was also at 2500 ft and not at the sea level...

What are you actually showing with your scope shot?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on August 01, 2019, 04:38:26 PM
Itsu doesn't waste his time or ours by making false claims he cannot support with evidence. You do.
That makes you a LIAR, Rick. And nobody can believe anything that a proven LIAR says, unless it is
supported by valid evidence.

Hi TK, Yes, RF has shown himself to be very dishonest IMO. He implies or claims OU in various videos of his,
but never backs it up with any sort of reasonable demonstration which employs proper measurements
or which is self-looped. He then attacks and insults people here who merely point this out,  and has
been regularly spamming this thread as well now.



Some people may be wondering why RF has been attacking John Bedini.
John Bedini used to have a webpage (not sure if that webpage is still up) which documented how RF
and a couple others conspired together behind John's back to try to steal the design details of a little
transistor oscillator John had made with a tiny blocking oscillator soldered right inside the transistor case,
which they thought John was claiming/implying was over unity. John found out about how those guys
took one of those transistor devices apart and sent details of the schematic to each
other in email behind John's back. Also, in later years John Bedini released a statement
that RF had been selling John's proprietary technology without John's permission as well.
Since then RF has been attacking John.   

BTW, RF keeps spamming a picture here from a test I did which showed that LED lights can light very 
brightly even while consuming only about 60mW. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of reading meters would
realize that a digital ammeter which only reads to two decimal places will display 0.01 for currents
from 0.01A all the way up to just under 0.02A. Even though this was explained to RF, he either
still can't understand such a basic concept, or because he is very dishonest he implies that
the meter is reading incorrectly.  ;D

I do feel bad for the people with little understanding of RF's history and little understanding of electronics
which RF has been stringing along with all this sort of nonsense. This is why I am speaking out against this guy.
Much of what RF says here or in his videos is clearly nonsense, and that is why people here with a good understanding
of electronics have been pointing this out here.



I truly hope Stefan's friend has a burden for his planet and the people here
you Rick play as a God ..and try to tell me its Dark outside when I'm standing in sunshine..
and people die while you Fiddle. and you can take that to the bank !!

Hi Ramset. The chances for any OU claim being false is probably at least 99%, it seems.
RF has been talking a lot of nonsense here when asked if he can back
up any of his claims with a reasonable demo, so realistically the odds are probably
even worse for any of RF's claims. I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath
waiting for RF to ever back up any of his claims in any sort of reasonable way. :)

Chances are Stefan's friend is not going to fare so well if he tries his tests with
small incandescent bulbs instead of LED lights, and if he tries to self-loop his setup.


All the best...

Edit: Here is the link to the John Bedini webpage I am referring to:
http://www.johnbedini.net/john34/history.htm


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 01, 2019, 04:42:22 PM
Hey Ray
I thought you were speaking about JB's idea that as we go up in height the inductive kickback grows up. He said he tested that at 2500ft and he saw an increasement due to the elevation difference from sea surface. But the reference of his coil was also at 2500 ft and not at the sea level...

What are you actually showing with your scope shot?
scope shot
Driver is CD4047 with squ wave output driven into MosFet electrons self excited for peek BEMF
DC draw 11.5v 142 ma  is it OU ?  ;D Nein, aber es kann die Scheiße eines Oszilloskops schlagen, if go the wrong side of the dc-dc!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on August 01, 2019, 04:54:40 PM
scope shot
Driver is CD4047 with squ wave output driven into MosFet electrons self excited for peek BEMF

Hi Raycathode. FYI, BEMF (back EMF, AKA counter EMF) is not the same thing as
'flyback' spikes (inductor switching spikes), so it is not clear at all to me what you are trying to say.
Having switching spikes when pulsing an inductor is a normal thing. What do you mean to point out?

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 04:56:46 PM
Pay attention, I already have.  ::)

Rick maximus Friedrich,
Come on man show your negative energy pulsing 'more out than in claim' that John Bedini showed in as his
selling point the so called 'Tom Bearden invention'! all you have to do is show it working, show them the clip
that you discuss here on this very thread and JB shows in CD no 7.

Why can't you do it ? do it man!

what's the problem ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 01, 2019, 05:08:57 PM
Rick maximus Friedrich,
Come on man show your negative energy pulsing 'more out than in claim' that John Bedini showed in as his
selling point the so called 'Tom Bearden invention'! all you have to do is show it working, show them the clip
that you discuss here on this very thread and JB shows in CD no 7.

Why can't you do it ? do it man!

what's the problem ?
Jeepers, man.  You come into this thread late and Rick has to reinvent the wheel.  Go to the beginning and read the posts.  Rick shows the inductor upon inductor upon inductor powering his loads in one of his lengthy videos.  If you are gonna criticise Rick then do it on the basis of facts not pubtalk.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 05:09:42 PM
You don't understand the words you use. You can't prove something over the internet. You can explain things but proof is in the real world. You are just arguing for credulity here. I can't help you if you argue to be gullible.
This forum doesn't work because it is altogether hostile. You guys work by insults. Your fruit is merely negative. What contribution are you making with these repeated statements?
You also are just pushing a red herring with your continual false claims here about being concerned for the planet and people and saying that I am not. You don't know me or what I do.

Rick separating teaching from Proving is something which is not in my frame of reference .,in a world that can put two people on opposite sides of the planet into the same room ,Car or street corner at the push of a button ...looking and talking together?
.... a Forum does the same thing on steroids if you really want it too...
we have different goals and that makes us chose different paths .

I truly hope Stefan's friend has a burden for his planet and the people here
you Rick play as a God ..and try to tell me its Dark outside when I'm standing in sunshine..and people die while you Fiddle.
and you can take that to the bank !!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 05:16:56 PM
Yeah the idea is crazy. Like I said, it was if he was drunk when he said that. But he wasn't. At first appearance you would think he was getting mixed up with an antenna system but he clearly wasn't saying that at all. He's not talking about being high off the ground at all, or running wires or antennas. He was really messing with these guys for some reason. This was as wild as his "voodoo box".

Hi Ray
At second video we see more a missunderstanding than a secret. If JB was right then at sea level there would be no opposition from the coil after collapse. Meaning there would be no inductive kickback at zero level which is wrong.  ;)

ps. To take it a little further, what about in a deep hole below sea level? Will the coil augment instead of opposing? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 05:28:20 PM
I just ate an apple. Do I need to somehow prove that to you with evidence?  :P More importantly, do I need to? What makes you the king and judge of anyone here? You claim I am a liar, but you have not given any evidence at all. This makes you a slanderer. And you are self-defeating when you provide no evidence for your claim. You have serious problems and just waste everyone's time.

Itsu doesn't waste his time or ours by making false claims he cannot support with evidence. You do. That makes you a LIAR, Rick. And nobody can believe anything that a proven LIAR says, unless it is supported by valid evidence.


You make a claim. You cannot provide evidence that your claim is true. And I've just picked the most simple and blatant one, out of a bucket of unsupported and even proven false claims you have made. You can't do it! You won't even try, because you know you can't do it.

You can call me all the names you like, as you project your own failings onto others. That does not change the FACT that you have made claims you cannot support with evidence, nor the FACT that many of your claims have already in FACT been disproven soundly.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on August 01, 2019, 05:45:29 PM
Here is the link to John Bedini's webpage from John Bedini's old website where John Bedini documented in detail how
Rick Friedrich and some others went behind John's Bedini's back to steal the design of one of John's oscillator circuits,
which Rick and others believed was 'OU'. John called this particular mini oscillator his 'SG Radiant Oscillator'.
http://www.johnbedini.net/john34/history.htm

Here are a couple of relevant quotes by John Bedini from the above listed webpage on John Bedini's old website:

"This is the history of the SG Radiant Oscillator and how things get stolen even when you have people you trust helping you.
Even if they signed a confidential disclosure you still can't trust them. And then people ask why I do not answer them.
Judge for yourself why you never have seen John talk about the oscillators.
However, Peter and I never said anything obout OU at all since we were just testing The Negsistor effect in the transistors oscillators."

"So the whole time Rick and his friends come to visit they take my information and pass it around like playing cards.
It was later found out that they were making my oscillators and selling them without permission, nor would I ever give them permission,
You the people be the judge of what was going on with this gang."


Crikey! Is all I can say to this... :o

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 01, 2019, 05:51:22 PM
Rick Quote you can't prove anything on the internet !!end Quote
have you ever tried ? ... sent a PDF thru the internet to a replicator to build and report back ?or post same PDF on a forum to replicators ..everything needed to
replicate ?
if you have ...then something was wrong IMO

I find the internet a place where trust is in place everyday ,quite certain you ship product on this trust in your internet banking [proof.
Here there are claims which have no definition , just generic statements from
video clips .
I agree 100%
Using "your" methods ...and generic non teaching Videos with no schematics  coil specs or PDF document for replicators to follow along ..I agree.. you can't prove anything that way on the internet to anybody.
I will post no more in this topic to you...and wait for the fellow who Stefan is working with.Chet K









Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 06:21:14 PM
Void of truth,
You again fill more pages with lies and diversions. Why don't you do something positive? I guess that is not what you are here for.

Once again, you fail to understand basic things and just repeat nonsense.
POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

I attacked no one. I responded to your attacks.

As for the Bedini page, I have actually done a video exposing his lies. I actually show that I still have all the emails pertaining to that. John changed his story, moved around the wording and didn't prove anything with his statement. It was me that brought that ordeal to his attention and he publicly thanked me for that in 2006 on internet forums. Obviously he spoke well of me until 2012 7 years later. So if I had done something wrong in 2005, like these guys were doing behind his back, then why commend me for bringing it to his attention in 2005, and then in 2013 change the story to make me the one that did it? You see, I sent John the emails back in 2005 and in 2010 he asked for them again. That is why you see a 2010 date on the emails but they pertain to 2005 period. So that was misleading in itself. Then he puts all different colors on the words and mixes them around so you don't know who is saying what. Then he fails to share what he actually wrote to everyone at the time, especially about me bringing this to his attention. That had nothing to do with me. A friend of his name Stan M. (not the famous Stan Meyer) was given by John one of his prototype oscillators which he was in the process of patenting. He opened it up and shared the details with a bunch of John's friends and later to me. I shared that with John and he blew up. That was the end of the story. It resulted in him taking it out on people on the groups. But he was not upset with me for telling him that. So this was really bad for him to change that history many years later to make me out to be doing something that others had done before I even knew these people. One of the guys mentioned in his page was an top engineer and had nothing to do with it either. He was the one that discovered this page in 2013 and brought it to my attention. John was a bitter old man who hated so many people in the end. I never stole that oscillator nor did I ever sell it. I was never given one of them like Stan was. I had nothing to do with it. If I had done that in 2005 why would John in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 speak so highly of me?? Did he provide any evidence of his claim? No. He provide the emails I sent to him (which he changed around), which I showed in my video the actual emails. And I have no problems showing people that in the real world if that was needed.

As Brad asked not long ago, why did people like Aaron and John, and now you guys attack me when all I am doing is sharing information and helping others? The truth is I crossed a line in showing too much. He never wanted to show anything. He told me not to do the kits or show people the lawnmowers, cars and boats. I thought he was joking, but he was just a big name gatekeeper playing games with people. But if that was all he had on me then that is incredible when it is so easily disproven. I had a long talk with his lawyer and told him the facts. They were all talk and no substance.

As for you lies about your meters, you still defend them. You said the one meter reads up to 0.02 as 0.01, but your picture shows it as 0.022 and not less than 0.02. Even Red mocked your meters when I assumed they were mine. My point was that you didn't just lie about that, but that if your meters were not even accurate then we could not even determine what the real voltage was either. And obviously that the proven points above hold true, that you can't prove anything over the internet. Your refusal to admit your mistakes and cover up your lies reveals your intentions here Void.

Like I said, if you have something positive to share about OU then let's read it. But your example so far is the worst possible demonstration. So the very things you are saying about me you are doing yourself. This is exactly the work of a Troll, to accuse others of the very thing you are doing, and while you are doing it at the same time!  :o

Again, if I was just saying nonsense then why would Void continually fill these pages with all this? On the contrary, Void is trying to suppress valuable information here. Nonsense just needs only a few words and people move on. But we are approaching 140,000 views on this thread now. Must be something of importance going on here. Yet what we have here is an absolute denial of everything I have ever said and done by a good 10 or more people. I have responded to every question for a month and a half now, while people refuse to respond to anything I ask. My responses are never acknowledged and I just get more demands from the same trolls as if I owe them something. When I show them up they just resort to fallacies and expect something to be proven over the internet. They say I'm supposed to do that when I say I can and do do that in the real world to real people.

Here's a really intelligent statement from below:
"The chances for any OU claim being false is probably at least 99%, it seems."  :o  ;D  ;)
This is exactly the reasoning of a troll. Fill up the thread with such nonsense in the hope that it will drown out that which is important. You can always count on the trolls coming out to fill several pages of vomit after something important is shared.

Yeah, I have backed up my claims in the real world.

Hi TK, Yes, RF has shown himself to be very dishonest IMO. He implies or claims OU in various videos of his, but never backs it up with any sort of reasonable demonstration which employs proper measurements or which is self-looped. He then attacks and insults people here who merely point this out,  and has been regularly spamming this thread as well now.
Some people may be wondering why RF has been attacking John Bedini.
John Bedini used to have a webpage (not sure if that webpage is still up) which documented how RF
and a couple others conspired together behind John's back to try to steal the design details of a little
transistor oscillator John had made with a tiny blocking oscillator soldered right inside the transistor case, which John seemed to be claiming/implying was over unity. John found out about how those guys took one of those transistor devices apart and sent details of the schematic to each
other in email behind John's back. Also, in later years John Bedini released a statement
that RF had been selling John's proprietary technology without John's permission as well.
Since then RF has been attacking John.   
BTW, RF keeps spamming a picture here from a test I did which showed that LED lights can light very 
brightly even while consuming only about 60mW. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of reading meters would realize that a digital ammeter which only reads to two decimal places will display 0.01 for currents from 0.01A all the way up to just under 0.02A. Even though this was explained to RF, he either still can't understand such a basic concept, or because he is very dishonest he implies that
the meter is reading incorrectly.  ;D
I do feel bad for the people with little understanding of RF's history and little understanding of electronics which RF has been stringing along with all this sort of nonsense. This is why I am speaking out against this guy. Much of what RF says here or in his videos is clearly nonsense, and that is why people here with a good understanding of electronics have been pointing this out here.
Hi Ramset. The chances for any OU claim being false is probably at least 99%, it seems.
RF has been talking a lot of nonsense here when asked if he can back
up any of his claims with a reasonable demo, so realistically the odds are probably
even worse for any of RF's claims. I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath
waiting for RF to ever back up any of his claims in any sort of reasonable way. :)
Chances are Stefan's friend is not going to fare so well if he tries his tests with
small incandescent bulbs instead of LED lights, and if he tries to self-loop his setup.


All the best...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 06:54:16 PM
You are wrong, I have proven some things through the internet:

POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

Like, I wrote, self-evident matters can be proven. You guys just want to twist words and don't want to give up your game going on here for years.

I have actually sent thousands of pdfs and documents to people all over the world. People have reported back positively. But anyone in real world business who deals with troubleshooting knows from experience that there is a vast difference between what someone says is going on and what is really going on. When I actually visit in person I often find things are not what people say, both positively and negatively. People who believe in this stuff can easily over-believe, and people who disbelieve can also under-believe. Now if it is a matter of showing a picture of a broken break pad on a car, that is one thing. But we are talking about something altogether different. And the points above are proven true. No turning the subject around with words changes that fact. Someone can share information but you have no way of knowing if they are telling you exactly what they have done. I have traveled many miles to find that some engineer who was hired put 80 diodes backwards, or who had a massive disconnect. People just make mistakes. It is easy to do.

Your points show just the opposite. Because there is no trust, there are fraud protections.

Well it's good you will post nothing more, as you are not adding anything of value. You just make false statement. I have shown more than anyone in regards to details. You just deny that deliberately or you don't even bother to look at the details. You deliberately divert from what I have shared and claim that I haven't shared it. I don't owe you anything either. I share and you attack me for sharing, and then claim I have not shared what you attack me for.  :o You think that if you say such things enough that casual readers will just assume that you are speaking the truth.

Now the fact is that I am working on a comprehensive website that organizes all of this information in one place. You attackers will just hate it anyway because you don't actually want such information online. Anything good shared is assumed to be false, and given with selfish intent. You admit nothing good, and don't admit when you are shown to be wrong. So in effect you use reverse psychology to try and drive people away and prevent them from sharing. You want to control people and try and force them to prove things that are impossible. You guys want to stand as judge and jury to suppress any free energy research. Even before you know what parts are used you conclude on matters. I knew all that would happen as I have seen you people for many years now. I know how you all work. And that is why I have done all this the way I have. I have exposed several of you as trolls. Now I have dealt with many skeptics over the years, and understand the heat of a debate, etc. But this is a coordinated effort by real trolls with a mission. For anyone with any real desire to know these things does not act the way that several of you are acting. Neither does anyone who thinks it is all nonsense.

Rick Quote you can't prove anything on the internet !!end Quote have you ever tried ? ... sent a PDF thru the internet to a replicator to build and report back ?or post same PDF on a forum to replicators ..everything needed to  replicate ? if you have ...then something was wrong IMO I find the internet a place where trust is in place everyday ,quite certain you ship product on this trust in your internet banking [proof. Here there are claims which have no definition , just generic statements from video clips . I agree 100%  Using "your" methods ...and generic non teaching Videos with no schematics  coil specs or PDF document for replicators to follow along ..I agree.. you can't prove anything that way on the internet to anybody. I will post no more in this topic to you...and wait for the fellow who Stefan is working with.Chet K
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 01, 2019, 06:54:38 PM
Jeepers, man.  You come into this thread late and Rick has to reinvent the wheel.  Go to the beginning and read the posts.  Rick shows the inductor upon inductor upon inductor powering his loads in one of his lengthy videos.  If you are gonna criticise Rick then do it on the basis of facts not pubtalk.
Well It's not the sort of answer one would expect unless as he says, if i was in a pub, well thanks for that but I don't frequent pubs on the other hand as you didn't bother to point me to what your thinking of don't you think  your   behavior is  lacking of appropriate seriousness or earnestness here? any way I have more serious issues to get on with thanks.

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 01, 2019, 07:07:27 PM
Rick quote
But this is a coordinated effort by real trolls with a mission. For anyone with any real desire to know these things does not act the way that several of you are acting. Neither does anyone who thinks it is all nonsense.
end quote ....No Rick this is what it looks like when you walk into an open source builder group and say "Build this" .[if thats not what you were saying or implying ? ...its what we heard !!]Its why open source forums thrive ...The model speaks for itself... needs
no critique or endorsement .


Very true ...we took you to heart and listened ..thought you would lead with Build info [PDF]
But instead just drop crumbs to some plans ...Reality is you are in an Open source venue ...its not your fault.
You have different priorities which don't fit here [open source]..or this conversation would be different  and all of these open source fellows would just be saying thank you instead of "HUH"?

 I will wait for Stefan to open source ,and then ...watch the internet teach and share.... Chet K
  PS..Please no more same old same old ...I will not write here again ,just waiting on Stefan
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 08:47:13 PM
Wow, thanks for enlightening us.
You don't know what anyone does in the real world. All you do is assume the worst. That is your entire contribution here.

Hi Rick, No, you haven't. That is the problem. :)
You could easily silence any critics by simply showing a reasonable demonstration
which includes proper measurements or which is self-looped, showing something unusual going on,
but you do not do this. It should be no surprise if people are skeptical in such a case.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 09:24:49 PM
I don't see you guys writing about building. You are merely arguing against OU and slandering and diverting. It doesn't matter what this group was intended for, you guys have not kept to that over the last 1.5 months. This has turned into a debate which you have lost. I was sharing but you guys just attacked me whenever I shared anything. Then you demand more. This is exactly the work of trolls. Completely insincere. Merely trying to entrap me at every opportunity.
The problem is that you guys have been fundamentally wrong on these points:
POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

You don't want to admit this. There can be no builder's group if you are expecting impossible things from someone. If you don't even know what science is how can you expect to do science?
The problem is that I have made this all available for years and tens of thousands of people or more have been thankful for that. Maybe you think the world revolves around you, but it a little bigger than that Chet. I'm teaching the principles of free energy with various examples that I have publicly shown over the years. On the one hand you demand certain things, but the next moment you mock me and say it is all impossible. It's like bipolar. It is really A Game of Trolls with the weapons being fallacies. You never took me to heart. I was attacked from the first moment. I have saved all the posts Chet. There are no crumbs here. You just attack anything that is shared.
Look, you saw what your expert Darren or whatever his name is said. He said I was off by 150 to 250 times on the LED. On what grounds? And he is your ultimate judge as you people on OUR have set up. He is obviously the same over here. He is completely prejudiced. And you wonder why I have shared as I have. This whole thing has backfired for you guys. You thought you could disprove OU through these forums by just running over people with fallacies. But I carefully shared what I did to expose all of this while helping sincere people see all the lies and tricks you people pull. None of you trolls will admit the points above now which were settled because of me. So if you can't admit any foundation then you are insincere. You just want circular logic. None of you wants to admit any basis for free energy or OU but you just keep reasoning and assuming against the possibility. Why not explain to me how OU is even possible? Why not tell me why you refuse to answer such questions. It took G a long time to finally admit that he had no grounds for belief at all. He had said the opposite. How can you confirm something is OU if you have no way of understanding what is even possible? The problem it is just not true that "the model speaks for itself." You trolls have already declared that no matter what I say or show it has to be false. But I have shown things for 15 years to thousands of people. That is what I show, real things to real people. Buy who are you trolls? We will never know.

You trolls have failed but you have succeeded in ruining forums like this and discouraging people to participate. I have watched many people come onto such forums and be instantly attacked. No doubt many people are mistaken in what they think they have, but this kind of response surely drives people away from sharing anything. And that your whole agenda isn't it. Draw as much as you can out of them and then attack them in the end to drive them away. I can't prevent you from doing that, so you will continue to win that battle so long as forums allow that.

Rick quote
But this is a coordinated effort by real trolls with a mission. For anyone with any real desire to know these things does not act the way that several of you are acting. Neither does anyone who thinks it is all nonsense.
end quote ....No Rick this is what it looks like when you walk into an open source builder group and say "Build this" .[if thats not what you were saying or implying ? ...its what we heard !!]Its why open source forums thrive ...The model speaks for itself... needs
no critique or endorsement .


Very true ...we took you to heart and listened ..thought you would lead with Build info [PDF]
But instead just drop crumbs to some plans ...Reality is you are in an Open source venue ...its not your fault.
You have different priorities which don't fit here [open source]..or this conversation would be different  and all of these open source fellows would just be saying thank you instead of "HUH"?

 I will wait for Stefan to open source ,and then ...watch the internet teach and share.... Chet K
  PS..Please no more same old same old ...I will not write here again ,just waiting on Stefan
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 09:31:20 PM
If this is the way you reason or behave in cyberland then you have no credibility about what you say about the real world.
It is one thing to have a healthy skepticism and another to positively state that someone has not done something which you have no way of knowing (lying while calling someone a liar). As I wrote, you have no value to OU research discussions. Your name says it all: Void.

Actually Rick, based on many years of experience, I am very much aware of what people do in the real world,
and that is why I maintain a healthy skepticism about sketchy claims. :)
I am a reasonable person. If I see something which appears reasonable, I will be much more receptive to it.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 01, 2019, 10:09:34 PM
Rick  Please site a post where I was rude of chased persons away
or discouraged persons from sharing experiments here or anywhere.EVER !!
Just one will do !!

















Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 01, 2019, 10:40:36 PM
Well It's not the sort of answer one would expect unless as he says, if i was in a pub, well thanks for that but I don't frequent pubs on the other hand as you didn't bother to point me to what your thinking of don't you think  your   behavior is  lacking of appropriate seriousness or earnestness here? any way I have more serious issues to get on with thanks.

Raymondo


Ok Maybe I was a bit hash.  Here's a video on series line propagation by Rick.  You can understand why he gets annoyed sometimes when this stuff is out there.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3JyRMdJhzg&t=7s
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 11:46:06 PM
You got to be kidding. On the OUR forum at least you did that and I returned the following text to you in July 19th: "Maybe you could take back your harsh assumptions on the forum." You replied: "Will remove". I believe I replied to that on the forum so that your removed example would still be there. I haven't gone on that forum for a while so I don't know if I am still a member.
I really don't have time for you up and down games Chet. You guys can continually repeat the same things over and over and hope that people just look at your words. But it is evident what you are up to.

Rick  Please site a post where I was rude of chased persons away
or discouraged persons from sharing experiments here or anywhere.EVER !!
Just one will do !!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 01, 2019, 11:48:20 PM
Void can you please stop with spamming this thread the same nonsense over and over?

Dang Rick, can you please stop with spamming this thread the same nonsense over and over?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 02, 2019, 12:50:08 AM
For clarity I don't intend to post another word here towards Rick beyondwhats written below
Rick surely you jest ...I wrote similar posts here after that one you said was Harsh at OUR [so I removed it.. giving you the benefit of the doubt] .
I wrote that you profess Christian values  and your actions here are the antithesis of the faith .
I wrote that you dillydallied to bring these technologies to the world while children suffered and died worldwide


while mass  extinctions took place and mass migrations from human suffering


I wrote of you mentioning a 10 year plan and how it must be nice to have the luxury of time when  you   Have a full stomach and refrigerator filled with food ...clean water ...How you Flush water down the toilet that’s probably cleaner than billions of people have to dip into for their daily needs
And how your boat demonstration was probably on a lake that many suffering people would think they died and went to heaven to have as drinking water.


I wrote. ” on to Home so ever much is given much is required” and “to the least of these Thy brethren “


 I wrote that you should scream this Life-saving technology from the biggest platform and the highest mountain.. how the few hundred thousand membersin the various forums were tremendous assets towards this.
 
 you point fingers instead of looking in the Mirror.


I’m sorry you think that’s rude but I must admit in the court of public opinion such technology withheld from humanity for the sake of
 What was your reason again ?
 I guarantee I could ask a kindergarten child this question and they would know the right thing to do


  Your videos are confusing to me your efforts to get this technology to the world
 In my opinion border on extreme indifference and negligence Towards your fellow man.
 How those who need this the most ...don’t even have access to the Internet


Not sure if I wrote this but I feel it’s completely true


 If your family and loved ones were suffering for lack of freshwater food and all the other necessities that this could bring to them ...if your children were starving


I think you would have a completely different view and time frame .10 years ...?  10 seconds is too long when a childs life hangs in the balance
 It’s all about perspective Rick everything is good at your house ... so it’s all good .


And now you come and write stories or untruths About me suppressing life-saving technologies here


Ok Rick I’m stupid and don’t understand ...
 Am I just one of the disposable millions That may or may not live long enough or until you open your website


Please leave this place and take the time to open your website ..come back and post the link I’ll beat every drum I’ll Yell it from every place.


 After all we’re not talking about a gardening forum or basket weaving
You hold the keys to many lives RIck
Those lives are in your hands until you teach someone else and then those lives are in their hands too and so on and so on and so on


 Because someplace there is a family with absolutely nothing.... actually untold numbers of families .


None of us are free until all of us are free!
end of story and I am not responding unless you chose to share ...or chose to slander me again ... My name is in this forum since day one and my passion along with it.
I always try to treat another person the way I would expect or hope to be treated.and I was shocked to see you allowed others here who were trying so hard who had language issues and difficulty understanding your videos

how you just treated them with contempt instead of guiding them.I'm not twisting anything..just paying attention and hoping for the best.

Edit for Rick below
no mocking just the truth  "you will know them by their works.
no Drama here Rick Just the goals in the mission statement !
not an act either Rick its a life choice ,I am consistent for many years and counting.as you are also consistent ,and no need to ask what and how you share this great burden ? its all over these pages ,and not one offer of help to those who Build here just to customers ...Not a very Christlike choice ..not just an opinion..
When soo many Lives truly do hang in the balance your dismissive attitude says it all "Drama queen"yes Rick I know ..everything looks fine from your house.and no assumptions here ,just paying attention to the Void you left where help should have been .
Rick Quote
That's my business.  end quote..
anxiously awaiting Stefan's  friend and what he will share.


























Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: WhatIsIt on August 02, 2019, 02:00:41 AM
I've just received mail from Mr. Gear.
His team tested Rick's two and three battery system and measurement showed underunity in both test.
However, they also purchased through third person Rick's kit and will analyze it and make transient power measurement within next few days, along with some more complicated tests involved looped reactive power.
For the tests been precise, team has been split into two.
Every group will conduct its own methods with state of the art equipement.
Result of each group will be evaluated by Mr. Gear and his consultants.

The goal of test is determine does motor/load kit is COP>1, or OU, and if not, how efficient they are.
I dont have information what kit they purchase and Mr. Gear explaimed that he will reveal only test results, but not data and videos made during test.
Data and videos will remain in company possesions and can be viewed only through bussines agreement, after Rick will be contacted if test will be positive.
At least he will release final conclusion in public, which can not hurt company interest.

I think this is fair from his side. At the end he represents company interests and even final conclusion is much.

If test show positive results, Rick will be contacted and he will be presented with bussines proposal.

From his words test will be conducted very professional and with top gear which exists.
He mentioned possible complex measurements involved reactive power loop, but lots of what he spoke is out of my league.

So, stefan, you asked me to build it. I cant.
But found person who can and it is not problem for him.
Actually, I will be glad if results turns positive, and this whole story ends well.
Finally, Mr. Gear has possibility to do.it and I believe he will.

He said that every investigation of his which turns out even partially success was good for company and bussines deal has been made.
Until now he did not find true self runner but he found few very clever solutions which company paid well and inventors were satisfied.
True results were published through real patents which can actually be build and work.

I hope this will help,

Cheers!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 02, 2019, 03:13:35 AM
Wow Chet,
You're a real drama queen and extremely naïve. But then again, I don't believe your act either.
Like I said, that's a lot of assumption. You don't know a thing about what I have done and do. Do you have any evidence to back up this assumption? No. So this is beyond silly.
I'm not falling for the bait that you are putting out to get me to share the things I have done and am doing. That's my business.
If you don't care to listen to what I have shared then I can't help you. If you guys want to twist everything and mock people who share things then you reveal who you are to everyone.

For clarity I don't intend to post another word here towards Rick beyondwhats written below
Rick surely you jest I wrote similar posts here after that one at OUR .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 02, 2019, 03:45:16 AM
Dang Rick, can you please stop with spamming this thread the same nonsense over and over?

From what I understood from Stefan, Stefan said his friend will be doing some sort of demo,
so I hope they considered my suggestions to try using 1 to 3 Watt incandescent bulbs in
place of LED bulbs, and I hope they show what happens when they try to self-loop it.
I will be interested to see how that goes... :)
How about using 5 to 30 watt incandescent bulbs instead?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFP6c7lwyoE
Or powering a high voltage oscillator/flyback driver wirelessly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aKuwNTiO7I
(In that last video the flyback driver Frequency Generator Oscillator, which is powered by the Wireless Receiver,  is nearly the same circuit as the Wireless Power Transmitter ... so this is nearly a "daisy chain" demonstration. Thank goodness nothing can be proven over the internet, except that nothing can be proven over the internet.)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on August 02, 2019, 07:47:51 AM
How about using 5 to 30 watt incandescent bulbs instead?

Hi TK. Well, let's not confuse the issue. :)  I think if Stefan's
friend replaces his 3W LED bulbs with 3W incandescent bulbs, he
just isn't likely at all going to see any lights lighting up much at all, but if those LED lights are really
consuming over 1W each as was assumed, then those 3W incandescent bulbs should light up
a fair bit. I'd like to see an accurate measurement of the input power from the battery as well. 
I don't expect that anything much unusual will likely be found if such tests are conducted.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on August 02, 2019, 11:41:33 AM
Just fiddled around for some hour.
Ohh, remember nothing can be proved at this forum . . . . .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on August 02, 2019, 12:51:42 PM
Just fiddled around for some hour.
Ohh, remember nothing can be proved at this forum . . . . .
Hi Seaad,
Regardless,  feel free to share any more details you wish on how you arrived at to find efficiency > 1 ?   8)
Thanks,
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 02, 2019, 01:01:04 PM
It seems seaad is developping a RESONATOR type EM-Ranque-Hilsch-tube  !

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on August 02, 2019, 01:05:08 PM
Measurements  Input: V x I x cos angle  Output:  U2/R    n=Output/Input (watts)
NO LED's !   ;D ;D
Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 02, 2019, 01:08:43 PM
 8) by the end you develop the compressorfree magnetocaloric fridge( counterpart to the microwave owen) ;)
BTW: testing the device in cold ambient ( freezer/fridge) and before/after measurements results comparison ?

 Is positive voltage electricity hotter/ colder than negative voltage electricity ?
When there is no negative power factor phase ? In AC current is ever also DC participating

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19981001&CC=TW&NR=342155U&KC=U# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19981001&CC=TW&NR=342155U&KC=U#)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=47&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19880712&CC=US&NR=4757419A&KC=A#

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 02, 2019, 02:05:00 PM
Seaad, Talking with a few builders on your other topic,[a few topics actually]
seems this should get its own thread ?  lately in this thread tsunami's  of text show up and push things into the abyss .
what are you calling this device ?[category ??
??LancaIV writes It seems seaad is developping a RESONATOR type EM-Ranque-Hilsch-tube ??
 thx Chet
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 02, 2019, 02:24:34 PM
Seaad, Talking with a few builders on your other topic,[a few topics actually]
seems this should get its own thread ?  lately in this thread tsunami's  of text show up and push things into the abyss .
what are you calling this device ?[category ??
??LancaIV writes It seems seaad is developping a RESONATOR type EM-Ranque-Hilsch-tube ??
 thx Chet
Hi guys the last time i saw this device was in the 80s at a Bristol Siddeley convention now RR, on a NASA film clip where they wanted to find a way of testing for a planets or asteroids gravity or magnetic qualities they more or less showed how to make this type of harvester. You might still find the clip on youtube.

The open ended box was just a paxolin or cardboard former with a winding around it, rather than metallic I presume.

Regards Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 02, 2019, 02:33:14 PM
8) by the end you develop the compressorfree magnetocaloric fridge( counterpart to the microwave owen) ;)
BTW: testing the device in cold ambient ( freezer/fridge) and before/after measurements results comparison ?

 Is positive voltage electricity hotter/ colder than negative voltage electricity ?
When there is no negative power factor phase ? In AC current is ever also DC participating

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19981001&CC=TW&NR=342155U&KC=U# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19981001&CC=TW&NR=342155U&KC=U#)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=47&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19880712&CC=US&NR=4757419A&KC=A#
Hmm seen this some where else too on Daily thread talk to Grumage, it's going back a few years now.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 02, 2019, 02:42:10 PM
Chet with all what i will refer to as 'levity' is not my way, i'm asking will Stefan be returning the 'Guys' back to the 'Forum'? any time soon ?
to me truth would be consistency of the direct 'as you would say christian values.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 02, 2019, 03:28:52 PM
 Raymundo
 Generic statements ofter no clarity , what truth do you refer to ? take the bull by the horn‘s
 What are you actually saying ?


 Your last two posts or three posts could definitely use some focus and clarity
I apologize if you’re  native tongue is not the Queens English .


 Astroid planet  gravity field flavor shavers ??
Feel free ?
Your comment on seaad contribution ?
 Is this your information ?








Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 02, 2019, 03:57:33 PM
Measurements  Input: V x I x cos angle  Output:  U2/R    n=Output/Input (watts)
NO LED's !   ;D ;D
Arne
I refer you to my video of testing the Partzman Bifilar Transformer.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 02, 2019, 05:16:56 PM
Raymundo
 Generic statements ofter no clarity , what truth do you refer to ? take the bull by the horn‘s
 What are you actually saying ?


 Your last two posts or three posts could definitely use some focus and clarity
I apologize if you’re  native tongue is not the Queens English .


 Astroid planet  gravity field flavor shavers ??
Feel free ?
Your comment on seaad contribution ?
 Is this your information ?
Yes, but i refer to the unstableness of none clarity of the situation you guys appear to be finding on this thread
with everything up in the air, so i guess truth would be in the reality of us the users being in sync with this threads teacher guys your hosting here ie being able to have a solid foundation to do so and move forward would be truth in my way of thinking.

Regards Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 02, 2019, 06:02:44 PM
I'm actually working on a device Jb style with a row or Neo magnets mounted on square steel section over a steel threaded section all north on one side and south on the other side but no slip rings used, instead I used 2 hall effect this gives a half circle magnetic effect that changes over every 180 deg. the circuit is a JB design that's supposed to recharge the battery. Unfortunately this design does not give any null point (dead zone) considering it's supposed to be an over unity generator ! It cant do both at the same time. I don't thing its funny !!

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 02, 2019, 06:13:20 PM
 Raymundo
 I think I get the gist of what you’re trying to say
 It’s your assumptions that perhaps need focus
 
Here  very recently in this topic ....with every post I write To the other man.( whose name I will not write)(text Tsunami might manifest)
I fully expect to be moderated ,  I say that because my discussion with him was not a technical discussion at all.
 My discussion was totally and completely a moral discussion .
 Our only host here is Stefan  every single reader including all moderators are only guests .


 Here you may be witnessing those who persevere over the decades have become acquainted at some level .
 
And Are completely autonomous of any forum venue.
 But the forum  is the best venue in my opinion ,if one truly has at their heart ...open source .
 And a public forum like this with open membership ,Stephen has to advertise to subsidize the effort it takes here
All of his time for many years now.
 It is a big effort when the forum has open membership and needs attention regularly .
Believe me I don’t think this venue is a path to great wealth ,based on just advertising revenue.


 Yes it would be nice to have a benchmark place to move forward from and actually do real science
I feel we turn a page  here
 Others have a different opinion and feel I am foolish .


 I love this place and all the people ,And honestly .... even the man whom I confronted here recently.


What an absolute delight it was though to see the builders stick together,Even those who were disgusted by this! ( from both sides of this )
And the beautiful part is the door is always open for sharing and discussion.


 Nobody ever ever ever gets to say something doesn’t work here without proof
 And of course we like to test claims people make , So I guess the opposite is true also .


100% transparency it is the only way forward and brutal honesty or the scientific method

 And I don’t think that is just one man’s opinion
Respectfully
Chet

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 02, 2019, 08:06:52 PM
 
Raycathode (https://overunity.com/profile/raycathode.107396/)Quote (https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/1860/post/quote/538010/last_msg/538014/)
   I'm actually working on a device Jb style with a row or Neo magnets mounted on square steel section over a steel threaded section all north on one side and south on the other side but no slip rings used, instead I used 2 hall effect this gives a half circle magnetic effect that changes over every 180 deg. the circuit is a JB design that's supposed to recharge the battery. Unfortunately this design does not give any null point (dead zone) considering it's supposed to be an over unity generator ! It cant do both at the same time. I don't thing its funny !!

Raymondo End Quot
e
  =================================================
 Raymondo
 You see this problem you’re having right now
Seems you purchased information or read information or whatever??
 and assumed a result which you are not experiencing on the bench
 And yes it’s not funny


Would you have preferred that you could have researched this information here at this forum where experimenters  have done the experiments and share the results openly for others to compare
perhaps have learned not to waste your time there if that is indeed what you are saying I’m not certain?


 For clarity no such information is available anywhere to my knowledge
That is to say such a database supported by a group of membership that is available if need be to engage .....or perhaps through representatives to engage (ask questions)?


This is my dream for this venue
 and all these builders being helped by this community to do other experiments ...real science perhaps?
 in my opinion with all our resources and connections to universities scientists  EE,s  specialists in all fields and amazingly gifted builders worldwide


 Stephen has a tiger by the tail ..and can bring his mission statement to fruition.




 Here we have thousands of YouTube and other kinds of videos that need to be categorized
 Persons who have very good test equipment and show and share their results.
 With Complete transparency for discussion.... always
 In case something was missed ?


What you witnessed here these last weeks were many of those same person’s  and there need to be sure nothing was missed on their own benches
Others are more confident perhaps much more experienced but always ask for enough detail to experience this claim  themselves
 Here it is a system of checks and balances so no one person can take the stage and make a claim which holds no water , For or against a claim .
 If the forum has that kind of reputation  that is to say where nothing is dismissed without proof
there is little concern for Hidden agendas of secrecy ....  or similar nonsense claims.
Some  one will find a way if they are frightened of release themselves to get the information to others to investigate or try  or at least discuss .
 And that needs to happen in a venue where there are many men of like mind For checks and balances so that no one man once again holds all the information of the claim and it is  discussed within a group of like-minded individuals .
Here I  emphasize an open source venue.


 Here we can build such a place and maximize our time and efforts
 And we have plenty of good builders with much experience to help vet claims


As a community ...I feel and have always felt those builders need to be helped in some way
 So as to not carry so much burden themselves When they work for the benefit of all.


 There are a few things right now from these last few days that need a more thorough explanation


You have to understand this will be a lot of work for Stephen ....to make a section where members teaching videos Are shared or discussed


Perhaps someone has an algorithm which can input questions into a database of videos ??
I am unaware of such , however I am certain it exists .


 Sorry for such a long post but we need to fix this and move forward .


 I am not certain this is just one man’s opinion













Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 02, 2019, 08:35:18 PM
Rick has posted OU builds.  People are just not listening.
Here he demonstrates what he has always said - namely that when modifying one of hs fans, there is no diminution in output power by the fan yet he can charge a second battery.  He uses a meter to prove his point.


Yet no comment from super qualified EEs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s


I believe you can keep rotating the batteries if you wish.



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 02, 2019, 08:41:07 PM
A king
Since you watched the video
 Can you put together a list of components necessary for a replication ?
As well as the claims it runs for one hour  One year or whatever the claim is


 Please do not just say generic pieces of equipment with generic components
 Please I beg you
part numbers everything
If required a schematic [yes please
whatever it is  ..wire gauge.. terminal connector specs...type and size of batteries [smaller the better for other replicators to follow. 
 can we do this  In you’re Aking investigation thread ? ask for Build info so there will be no issues Please
or a new topic ??
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 02, 2019, 09:23:40 PM
Back in early 2006 I worked extensively with Eric Vogels on this stuff. Eric did some nice pulse motor builds and I did the coil driver designs. After many variations and testing, we never observed any gains, or extended battery charge.


This was back when I incorrectly referred to inductive kickback as "cemf" (like most others). The attached design is basic but worked well. I was also looking ahead for a better process, as seen in the version 7 drawing, but work on this ceased after it was determined there were no gains.


...I'm not sure why, but I can't post pics here...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 02, 2019, 09:43:10 PM
.I see note below ....,removed oversized images
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 02, 2019, 09:54:32 PM
Chet, I think I can reduce the size and post one at a time like you did.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 02, 2019, 10:55:10 PM
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=2010321106A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=7&date=20101223&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=2010321106A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=7&date=20101223&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
 "Lenz effect, Lenz current, opposite Lenz current,Lenz circuit" ( also "Fleming-..... " ?)
[0074] "overunity effect device" process. ?

 
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20110804&CC=US&NR=2011187319A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20110804&CC=US&NR=2011187319A1&KC=A1#)

but not only battery charging, included :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080812&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=7411363B2&KC=B2&ND=4# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080812&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=7411363B2&KC=B2&ND=4#)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 02, 2019, 11:28:10 PM
This is a short video 37 Min [Which A King posted above
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s)
I requested From A King  instructions or test protocol ,with all Bits and pieces  .
If its a simple as he suggests ? and the parts are in house or reasonable ?
have not heard Back yet.
a replication awaits !!will see if I can play the Vid in the shop while I'm working...if it is specific enuff ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 02, 2019, 11:31:25 PM
Back in early 2006 I worked extensively with Eric Vogels on this stuff. Eric did some nice pulse motor builds and I did the coil driver designs. After many variations and testing, we never observed any gains, or extended battery charge.


This was back when I incorrectly referred to inductive kickback as "cemf" (like most others). The attached design is basic but worked well. I was also looking ahead for a better process, as seen in the version 7 drawing, but work on this ceased after it was determined there were no gains.


...I'm not sure why, but I can't post pics here...
Hi there Poynt99,  presumably the Hall is hooked up to the coil of unknown value and oscillates, i would like to see this in action
so how is the coil wound and what is it's value ?

Chet I can't see a circuit diagram on Rick / A.kings hour long clip, is it me or shouldn't i mention it (seriously) ?
other wise I would try and knock one of my old fans up as he has.

Regards Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 03, 2019, 01:09:13 AM
Ray,


The Hall sensor would have been triggered by the flywheel-mounted magnets.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 03, 2019, 02:15:59 AM
Hi there Poynt99,  presumably the Hall is hooked up to the coil of unknown value and oscillates, i would like to see this in action
so how is the coil wound and what is it's value ?

Chet I can't see a circuit diagram on Rick / A.kings hour long clip, is it me or shouldn't i mention it (seriously) ?
other wise I would try and knock one of my old fans up as he has.

Regards Raymondo
It looks like Rick is redoing his videos in shortened format.
So the first one in the chain is this one where he proves that by rewiring the motor it can also charge a battery
 for free without diminution to the power output of the motor.
The subsequent designs build on this adding more and more open paths until you get to the stage of the video
 from one of his meetings where one of his students has managed  a 1 kw system to power all the lights in his shop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s)
And yes Rick has used meters to show what can be replicated.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 03, 2019, 06:42:42 AM
LET THE WISE AND OF OLD INTELLECT DECIPHER THIS FREE FREE
ENERGY GENERATOR FROM THE MAD LOUD FISHERMAN 4 DEGREES
SOUTH OF THE EQUATOR,.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on August 03, 2019, 07:24:59 AM
This was back when I incorrectly referred to inductive kickback as "cemf" (like most others).

poynt99, Void

May i ask you guys why is there any problem of calling inductive spikes as counter emf when the equation which calculates both is the same?

cemf=-L*ΔΙ/Δt

After all, an inductive spike is a result of opposition to current change isn't it like that?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 03, 2019, 08:40:57 AM
Thanks Red,
You say "nobody" but how can you know that? I know some of the top engineers in the world who do this work. You think the few people here represent anything? What there are 10 skeptics here playing child's games who all know just basic electrical theory, and therefore you can conclude something about people? Funny!  ::) You really don't have a clue.

The basic video showed no rotation, and all charging to the battery was free. The CFMs were the same. The input went down. A very simple starting point. No, that wasn't a rotating system, but someone, millions of people, could have some extra output than what a very popular motor gave them. You may think it is just more efficient, and that is fine. It is still more than what is usual. It is a tool to show people an easy start. Not the idea conversion for the fan kit, but very easy to start with with people. Like I wrote, if you have extra energy output where there should not be any, then that is free. 10% more is nice. 30% more is better. 50% is fairly noticeable. 90% is great. And rotating continually, well that is where we don't even need to measure it (ooh did I dare say such a thing!  ;)

Look, I do understand what you are saying. You probably followed the wrong person or instructions in the past and that is why you are so sore and nasty about things here. I have seen many a person that is completely ignorant of battery capacity and voltage drops, etc. They got excited, maybe because they had sulfated batteries and saw some voltages go up fast. Eventually their batteries went flat and they really didn't know how to evaluate any of that. I understand this more than any of you here. I have been doing this full time for 15 years, and worked with batteries for 15 years prior to all of this. I deal with battery capacity considerations every day in the real world with real batteries locally, and with engineers all over the world. We deal with bringing batteries back to capacity. But in such controlled experiments we start with new batteries fresh, or cycle them around several times, or whatever is necessary. You need to know exactly the capacity of batteries that you are dealing with otherwise what control do you really have? Early on in all this (2005) I rotated a modified ceiling fan (I just put the blades on a motor) after I set it up to have the same pitch and rpm as an identical one. I compared the watts to run the modified one with my motor and I ran that all spring/summer rotating the car batteries every 12 hours. The AC fan took 40W continuous. My fan took less, and it also had an incandescent bulb creating a few watts of light in addition. This was one of my early experiments, and I actually showed that in detail on video and later at the 2010 convention. The batteries didn't go flat Red. So there is your logging as well. Every 12 hours I rotated the batteries. One charged and the other discharged, back and forth. This was before YouTube so the video is still on the old website somewhere. There was no advanced circuitry. It did have the cap pulser on it. The batteries were not new. Now this was a typical experience that many people all over the world had. Yeah sure, it wasn't for everyone to do that, and people made mistakes. But all this is old news. People wanted more than that eventually. But you guys are newbies and were not around in those days. So you need to start at the beginning. That's why I have done what I have here, to deal with the foundations, step by step.

As I said, the boat was the same thing with a different motor. I did that longer. 3 years. I did many other prolonged tests, but these I did to show people a few examples. Now you guys are all heaping abuse over your demands about exact parts and all that, but so many examples were given over the years already. And it really doesn't matter if I share anything anyway, as you will just deny it or say beforehand that it doesn't work. There are hundreds of statements to that effect in these two forums. I have shared enough so that you can verify this for yourselves, as no doubt at least several of you have (but I doubt would ever admit).

Anyway, I have shown several way to progressively get more or less free energy. A little, self-running, and as much as you want by adding more processes. If you can't do the first stage then it may just not be your thing. You should probably find another hobby.

No, Dick has posted OU _CLAIMS_. Obviously nothing can be proven on the internet, remember? As we have learned, though, nobody who actually knows how to measure Joules in versus Joules out has confirmed these CLAIMS, though many have tried. The only people who think they have verified his claims are his customers, and these are people who apparently cannot even wind their own coils.

Certainly you can keep rotating the batteries if you wish, until all of them are totally flat. You still won't get more Joules out than were in there in the first place. If you care to claim otherwise, go ahead and demonstrate it for yourself. Don't point to another hours-long video from the person who has already discredited himself here.


Meanwhile we are still waiting for Dick to demonstrate that he can run his frequency generator from the output of one or several of his receiver coils. But I don't think anyone is holding their breath waiting.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 03, 2019, 08:49:32 AM
Chet!







Chet!






Why





are




you




leaving



so




many




spaces?




Are



you



drawing



attention



to



yourself?  8)







 Raymondo
….


….


….


….


….




….


….


….


….


….


….


….


….


 I am not certain this is just one man’s opinion
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 03, 2019, 08:56:19 AM
Well,
I didn't post this video here. This is an old subject as I have mentioned. You can do this will just about any brushless DC fan. That is the point. If you watch the video you would understand that it is not about running it for a particular time as there was a power supply on the input. All battery charging would just continue on in the same way. It's pretty simple stuff. You don't need to overthink it.

A king
Since you watched the video
 Can you put together a list of components necessary for a replication ?
As well as the claims it runs for one hour  One year or whatever the claim is


 Please do not just say generic pieces of equipment with generic components
 Please I beg you
part numbers everything
If required a schematic [yes please
whatever it is  ..wire gauge.. terminal connector specs...type and size of batteries [smaller the better for other replicators to follow. 
 can we do this  In you’re Aking investigation thread ? ask for Build info so there will be no issues Please
or a new topic ??
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 03, 2019, 09:25:51 AM
Well D,
It's good that you at least shared that.
It's doubtful that such experiments showed you no gains. I have seen thousands of similar setups that are motor or solid state, and there has been none that have shown zero gains unless they were doing something fundamentally wrong (which happened many times). Once corrected they always show gains. I suppose, if we take your words from the other day, then the word "gains" is merely arbitrary to be whatever you wish it to be. That's exactly why I wrote something specifically addressing that.

Which brings me to the most fundamental point: That Maxwell's 5 points were removed that make such gains permissible. And they came to Maxwell directly from Faraday. The one motor I have is essentially a Faraday motor inverted, but with battery charging in addition. Anyway, all the arguments here have been based upon the truncated Maxwell symmetrical equations which are just arbitrary and also outdated.

Again, it is interesting that the one faked fan video that was mentioned here a few times with 4 million videos shows they guy deliberately faking the charging side to claim to show a tiny cap not being able to charge up to 1V. I think we all know that is an obvious fake.

It is probably better if you do this rather with an actual motor where you are using all of the input energy to run a mechanical load normally as I did with the fan. Then do extra work in another load like charging battery which will be free energy. This is the idea of having dual purpose or multiply loads of different kinds of energy outputs. We always joke around, if you are going to energize a coil you may as well push a magnet for free. In my deluxe model, in addition to the battery charging, and motor torque, we also power emp receiver coils. May as well, as it is free.

Of course judging form everything you have said and assumed already, I have no confidence that you would do that or present things honestly. But I say this for those who sincerely want to do this sort of thing for themselves. That is all we can do anyway. We call no man master as they view D on OUR.

Now once you can do the basics then you can multiply the same process out again and again many times at the intermediate level. The advanced level is to multiply it out indefinitely as the black box.

Back in early 2006 I worked extensively with Eric Vogels on this stuff. Eric did some nice pulse motor builds and I did the coil driver designs. After many variations and testing, we never observed any gains, or extended battery charge.


This was back when I incorrectly referred to inductive kickback as "cemf" (like most others). The attached design is basic but worked well. I was also looking ahead for a better process, as seen in the version 7 drawing, but work on this ceased after it was determined there were no gains.


...I'm not sure why, but I can't post pics here...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 03, 2019, 12:48:34 PM


Now you show a bit more of your loving self ...sorry I have very Bad problems with Visionand seeing the screen ..[Eye Buckle surgeries and Retina detachments, it takes a very long time for me to write ,having to go Back and forth to correct ,I was unaware of this problem with spacing.

that and on this site my Keyboard does not put what I type and how I type
on the page [sentence structure and spacing],I have mentioned this many times here...when I use the phone and talk Type it seems better but even harder to see the screen..[below is a sceenshot of what this post looked like when I pressed send ,and here you can see how it looks.[EDIT this screenshot is after posting a good post and having to go back 20 times to try to make it readable here.

I am amazed that you write Liable here against a Known Man implying an act of deception.
and it would be a mute point if many could replicate your simple circuit
and show a gain mechanism here for others to see

also we have the option here of using a Lab that has a volunteerwho could replicate this gain ?
The Lab in Orlando that helps people here and elsewhere search for technologies to share with the world  some here would send all the pieces there to be assembled
and shared.


for clarity you are saying there is a gain which will manifest in the lab ..or we can Hire a lab to investigate ,   

I have worked with test labs all my working life..there are plenty who could do a 3rd party certified report .and post the results here,their  reputations are on the line every time they write and certify a report
we are after all talking about saving millions of lives here ...with Your technology ...and some would say it will save our planet too.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 03, 2019, 01:06:15 PM
SIDE VIEW
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 03, 2019, 01:13:01 PM
TOP VIEW
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 03, 2019, 01:19:29 PM
Chet!
Chet!
Why
are
you
leaving
so
many
spaces?
Are
you
drawing
attention
to
yourself?  8)
_____________
Quote from: ramset on August 02, 2019, 08:06:52 PM

 Raymondo
….

 I am not certain this is just one man’s opinion
q
RaycathodeQuote
   I'm actually working on a device Jb style with a row or Neo magnets mounted on square steel section over a steel threaded section all north on one side and south on the other side but no slip rings used, instead I used 2 hall effect this gives a half circle magnetic effect that changes over every 180 deg. the circuit is a JB design that's supposed to recharge the battery. Unfortunately this design does not give any null point (dead zone) considering it's supposed to be an over unity generator ! It cant do both at the same time. I don't thing its funny !!

Raymondo End Quote 
  =================================================
 Raymondo
 You see this problem you’re having right now
Seems you purchased information or read information or whatever??
 and assumed a result which you are not experiencing on the bench
 And yes it’s not funny

   Please be aware I did find a solution to this problem which I have not implemented yet as it's on a 'bread board' layout
   what it involves is to use one of the quad nand gates or a nor gates which involves a cap a resistor and a direction steering diode
   to shorten the on time or off time depending on the user of the gate in order to allow BEMF you have kick back time.. no doubt i will get round to building it on a
   pcb as It will need two sets one for each hall output and perhaps a red green LED to make it look good.

   Would you have preferred that you could have researched this information here at this forum where experimenters  have done
   the experiments and share the results openly for others to compare
   perhaps have learned not to waste your time there if that is indeed what you are saying I’m not certain?

   For clarity no such information is available anywhere to my knowledge
   That is to say such a database supported by a group of membership that is available if need be to engage .....or perhaps through
   representatives to engage (ask questions)?

   This is my dream for this venue
   and all these builders being helped by this community to do other experiments ...real science perhaps?
   in my opinion with all our resources and connections to universities scientists  EE,s  specialists in all fields and amazingly gifted
   builders worldwide

   Stephen has a tiger by the tail ..and can bring his mission statement to fruition.

   Here we have thousands of YouTube and other kinds of videos that need to be categorized
   Persons who have very good test equipment and show and share their results.
   With Complete transparency for discussion.... always
   In case something was missed ?

   What you witnessed here these last weeks were many of those same person’s  and there need to be sure nothing was missed on
   their own benches
   Others are more confident perhaps much more experienced but always ask for enough detail to experience this claim 
   themselves
   Here it is a system of checks and balances so no one person can take the stage and make a claim which holds no water , For or
   against a claim .

   If the forum has that kind of reputation  that is to say where nothing is dismissed without proof
   there is little concern for Hidden agendas of secrecy ....  or similar nonsense claims.
   Some  one will find a way if they are frightened of release themselves to get the information to others to investigate or try  or at
   least discuss .

   And that needs to happen in a venue where there are many men of like mind For checks and balances so that no one man once
   again holds all the information of the claim and it is  discussed within a group of like-minded individuals .
   Here I  emphasize an open source venue.

   Here we can build such a place and maximize our time and efforts
   And we have plenty of good builders with much experience to help vet claims

   As a community ...I feel and have always felt those builders need to be helped in some way
   So as to not carry so much burden themselves When they work for the benefit of all.

   There are a few things right now from these last few days that need a more thorough explanation

   You have to understand this will be a lot of work for Stephen ....to make a section where members teaching videos Are shared or
   discussed

   Perhaps someone has an algorithm which can input questions into a database of videos ??
   I am unaware of such , however I am certain it exists .

   Sorry for such a long post but we need to fix this and move forward .
   I am not certain this is just one man’s opinion

q
'rickfriedrich' Please stay cool and explain, i'm not your enemy ??
of course if you so wished as you appear to moderate the moderator you could just
ask  Stefan for moderator control of your very own thread and halt all input accordingly.
I Just thought i would leave you with that thought.

Raymondo

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 03, 2019, 01:37:27 PM
SIDE VIEW
High have you got this to work, some guy (the guru to you)( a guy with a north german accent),  says he got slung off you tube
for publishing this, another guy who said he built it said it was difficult to get going and it needed
a driver and he got little return, but who really knows for sure,

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 03, 2019, 04:36:49 PM
Rick  Here I will show my problem posting at this site [your reference post# 1878 and my response was in post 1881 ].You will see what I write here in the screen shot below ,prior to clicking send. [edit read that if you  can't read this]
  As mentioned, we have access to a Lab in Orlando which for many years has tried to get FE techs out
to the world.There is a man who volunteers there and has helped there and elsewhere for quite some time.actually several  volunteers  there.  If you will make a brief PDF ,members here will do the rest [get whatever is needed there]and all will be shared here and elsewhere. Or we can hire an independent test lab which will use Certified and calibrated equipment all documentedand a certified test report ,which is standard operating procedure for them every day ,there reputations
and integrity is on the line. I agree with Ray you could work here as Wesley and Bruce TPU and a few others Do.
EDIT to add/I have worked all my  life with test labs ,in extremely sensitive and high liability areas /where many many persons lives depend on the results being accurate  /.NYC,Boston and all along the Northeast corridor of the USA/Both as a field rep and freelance ...always using certified equipment with upto the minute calibrations/These reports are not allowed to be inaccurate ,lives and reputations rely on that /respectfully/Chet K/Ps/I put a slash everywhere I dropped to the line below in this Edit /And here you read how the forum wrote this post,The problem varies every time ./IMO not everyone wants open source out there.
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 03, 2019, 06:25:20 PM
Raymondo,
That reply was not to you but Chet. I was merely pointing out that there were very large spaces between sentences and at the end of the posts from Chet. I only included a few words to show which post I was replying to. Such spaces just make for lengthy posts for no reason. Obviously I am always criticized for long posts, but adding many spaces is no content and makes for many more pages. I always try to remove the spaces in the replies so as to keep the format as short as possible. Not a big deal. I was just noticing the excessive spacing. Others have complained along similar lines when people make pictures too wide.

'rickfriedrich' Please stay cool and explain, i'm not your enemy ??
of course if you so wished as you appear to moderate the moderator you could just
ask  Stefan for moderator control of your very own thread and halt all input accordingly.
I Just thought i would leave you with that thought.

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 03, 2019, 08:26:40 PM
I think that may be the same Lab I have dealt with some years ago. I was invited down to Orlando for two days to do consulting. One of my customers there had hired an engineer to put together my large 10 coiler and another 20 coiler monopole. They had a problem with the 20 coiler. After about 10 minutes I realized that the negative buss connection had a massive cold solder joint so that it was intermittently turning on and off. So I fixed it and then it worked properly. Later they changed it around with big circular busses. I mentioned that setup recently in a video, and in a more recent video showed the 10 coiler from Orlando. These guys were doing various things over the years and mentioned from time to time some details. Apparently one of the guys is on OUR so it may be the same Lab. Another one of these guys who was associated lives up this way and works with a local college doing similar research. These guys are not closed to OU research (obviously) and have shared that they have had some success over the years. I don't have any close relations with them so I can't confirm their work. While I know many scientists and engineers in the government and military and related work, I decided long ago not to get involved with anything that directly or indirectly deals with weapons or warfare because I am of the non-aggression anti-violence persuasion. And that includes people in (or formerly in) Lockheed and darpa, etc. These guys already have all this anyway. Many OU technologies compete with such entities and their agendas and that is why they are not allowed for the public and limit what people can show. I'm not bringing this up as a point, but only to say why I have refused to work with various Labs and people (even though I have demonstrated to such)...

Labs are made up of people with motives. If you want to consider the work of Labs that have published already on these subjects, then consider the work that T. W. Barrett has published as I have mentioned. No need for new testing when there are plenty of examples over the last 70 years. Barrett himself, as a leading authority in this work, has published many very import works. He is a top level scientist and his latest book was sponsored by Ratheon, DoD, etc., and relates to this research (and what I have done with the Resonance coils): Resonance And Aspect Matched Adaptive Radar (Ramar). Such works are above what people are able to understand here but I have tried to bring about some of his earlier work that directly deals with the various systems I have demonstrated on a basic level and with Tesla's systems. You guys should not be ignoring this but be all over it. Barrett and associates have provided hundreds of citations for you to examine. No one wants to consider that, perhaps because it above their ability to understand or else they don't want to admit it. That's why I said this is old news. OU and Free Energy are long proven out in all the ways necessary. It has also been used in many ways as well in existing technology. Barrett did this with optics. What I have been doing is making it as simple as possible for the average person. I'm trying to avoid all the advanced language, convoluted processes, and expensive parts and procedures so that the poor can take parts around them and make them work. And this is what has happened all around the world. You mock me for not doing what I have actually been doing for 15 years now. I'm trying to teach people in an effective way and remove the psychological obstacles (like prejudice). You guys demand this and that, while regular people just get right to work and use the technology. I'm not here to try and prove something or get recognition. I have just passed on information. If you want the kind of proof you are asking for then read Barrett. You can do all the experiments and see for yourself if the various Labs and scientists were wrongfully awarded Nobel prices or were mistaken. What you guys have done here is tried to convince readers of these forums that no one has ever proven anything like this in a Lab, and you have taunted people making OU claims with your demands to prove something through you as you outlined below (as if you are some judge). You bank on the fact that common readers are not familiar with advanced physics history over the last 120 years, and press the truncated Maxwell under unity college level electrodynamics as if it is some absolute or universal (because that is all you know). If you have a problem with that statement then show us why Barrett was wrong in his historical analysis of what happen with Maxwell's equations and the resulting removal of the A potential, etc.

You can hire people to produce the exact outcomes you want. Darren will be sure to make zero gains even as he assumed I was off by 150 to 250 times with LEDs. There is your expert with his conclusion before he has even begun testing. It's like General Mills paying millions of dollars for 10 year testing trying to get support for the nutritional benefits of processed sugar, or the tobacco industry doing the same sort of thing. How many professors will personally, and quietly, admit many things that they have actually done in their Labs, but will not risk their reputations or be allowed to publish the truth. Labs lie all the time because motives are real. But we already have the findings published at the highest levels if you do your homework. The big corporations are profit based and not humanitarian. They control the schools and public sentiment. If knowledge equaled action then so many things would be different in this world. But people ignore and suppress what they know to be true and selling of energy is one of the most profitable trades.

You have to come to grips with this Chet. Your reasonings are rather naïve. You don't know what has already been published. You don't know the history of electrodynamics. But you want to give the impression that people are only entitled to believe in OU claims if someone other than themselves certifies it for them. That's not the intention of this forum, and there is no grounds for anyone to come under that pressure. That reasoning makes Mythbusters legitimate. These appeals are identical entertainment and distractions when you have abundant testing confirmed over all these years. No, it is not my specific setups but all the parts of the whole are confirmed already. And if you are really serious then do your homework first and then you will have no problem seeing the consistency of what I have been showing. I presented here with the expectation that you guys would continue to do all this with all the arrogance. But in the end everyone can see that you are all only at the basic levels of this science. The first absurdity was thinking that you can prove something like this over the internet with videos and pictures. That was a really immature assumption that is still hotly resisted. You guys repeatedly claim that you are experts and work with Labs, etc. But is that so? Do you really know the advanced technology and science? No, obviously. So now you look silly waving all the prestige jargon appeal as if trying to sound like an authority (not speaking so much of you directly Chet) while you ignore those at the highest levels.

Again, start at the beginning and when you figure it out, then tell us why you have any rational reason to expect to believe in OU. G finally admitted that there was not reason. Nobody wants to address that fundamental starting point. Tell me, did not Faraday and Maxwell give such grounds? Why was that eliminated? Once you open up that door you will find everything you are looking for. You have to realize that everything is in a context. You will look at things from the context you are in.

  As mentioned, we have access to a Lab in Orlando which for many years has tried to get FE techs out
to the world.There is a man who volunteers there and has helped there and elsewhere for quite some time.actually several  volunteers  there.  If you will make a brief PDF ,members here will do the rest [get whatever is needed there]and all will be shared here and elsewhere. Or we can hire an independent test lab which will use Certified and calibrated equipment all documentedand a certified test report ,which is standard operating procedure for them every day ,there reputations
and integrity is on the line. I agree with Ray you could work here as Wesley and Bruce TPU and a few others Do.
EDIT to add/I have worked all my  life with test labs ,in extremely sensitive and high liability areas /where many many persons lives depend on the results being accurate  /.NYC,Boston and all along the Northeast corridor of the USA/Both as a field rep and freelance ...always using certified equipment with upto the minute calibrations/These reports are not allowed to be inaccurate ,lives and reputations rely on that /respectfully/Chet K/Ps/I put a slash everywhere I dropped to the line below in this Edit /And here you read how the forum wrote this post,The problem varies every time ./IMO not everyone wants open source out there.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 03, 2019, 09:09:43 PM
.will respond in a few days ,this response above confused me more than helped me,also completely confused by Military comments as they apply to the request.
















 




Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 04, 2019, 04:22:41 AM
I'm avoiding mentioning names of the group in Orlando on the forum.

.will respond in a few days ,this response above confused me more than helped me,also completely confused by Military comments as they apply to the request.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 04, 2019, 12:51:19 PM
 Did not want to bump the thread ,but see the time window has past for posting back there.
and You posted again , I have no idea about posting names of persons you sold machines to ,Nor was it ever my intention .It must have something to do with you not allowing a demonstration of this simple claim at your customers Lab..again the subject of the Energy Audit here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s)

 will just pay attention for now,and keep trying to find someone who will share .maybe a member here will Share?

Maybe A King will get something working or Stefan's friend.and then a demonstration will happen at the Lab there in Orlando and all the members here can Build it.

in the mean time there are other secrets to investigate ,and honestly I am not mocking you Rick ..about your comment that you help some poor the last 15 years...does that mean we don't need to Bother ? FE forums... hundreds of thousands of members to build and share..
 Not mocking just Stupefied ! I need some tape to hold my Jaw closed now...
 

 

 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 04, 2019, 04:13:27 PM
Did not want to bump the thread ,but see the time window has past for posting back there.
and You posted again , I have no idea about posting names of persons you sold machines to ,Nor was it ever my intention .It must have something to do with you not allowing a demonstration of this simple claim at your customers Lab..again the subject of the Energy Audit here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s)

 will just pay attention for now,and keep trying to find someone who will share .maybe a member here will Share?

Maybe A King will get something working or Stefan's friend.and then a demonstration will happen at the Lab there in Orlando and all the members here can Build it.

in the mean time there are other secrets to investigate ,and honestly I am not mocking you Rick ..about your comment that you help some poor the last 15 years...does that mean we don't need to Bother ? FE forums... hundreds of thousands of members to build and share..
 Not mocking just Stupefied ! I need some tape to hold my Jaw closed now...
I don't understand your comment here. I am not into moving systems. If anyone out there has one of these fans they can easily do an energy audit.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 04, 2019, 04:28:20 PM
AKing 21
 I apologize if you have not experimented with the video you posted
 I know you have been trying very hard to get things to the point that others could replicate also
 Stephan has experimented in the past perhaps we can send Stephen the bits and pieces he needs for this .
 Regardless .....any gain mechanism that can help this planet... needs to be open sourced everywhere possible... as fast as possible... below is a place I’m very fond of ,As anyone who reads here knows..
 LENR
https://overunity.com/18267/tadahiko-mizuno-lenr-breakthrough-cop- (https://overunity.com/18267/tadahiko-mizuno-lenr-breakthrough-cop-of-5-and-up-to-10-seeking-replication/msg538062/#new)
-5-and-up-to-10-seeking-replication/msg538062/#new (https://overunity.com/18267/tadahiko-mizuno-lenr-breakthrough-cop-of-5-and-up-to-10-seeking-replication/msg538062/#new)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 04, 2019, 09:15:39 PM
Chet,
I thought you were going to call me about this today?
I think you need to take a little more time to read through posts and type things out more clearly. You are not being clear exactly what you are talking about. Seems really confused or mixing a bunch of different things together or something  :o
Like bump what thread? What time window has past? Posted again?
As for posting names, I texted you what I was getting at yesterday. I was just wondering if it was the same Lab, and I told you that I didn't want to work with any Labs that had people who were formerly from certain sectors. You didn't confirm or deny that, and you texted that you would call about that.
So it is a little confusing for you to say no idea about posting names. Of course you don't have any idea about names of persons as I just asked you that name.
I didn't not allow a demonstration at that Lab. I wrote that I got it running as normal. They used those motors for years and they claimed that they worked as expected and powered various loads as I mentioned in the video. Why do you twist everything Chet? Are you not paying attention or are you trying to confuse the matter and make me look bad in that?

Anyway, that Lab in Orlando has already proven my claims out. All I was saying was that I wouldn't do any joint venture with them because of their former connections. That didn't stop me form going down there and troubleshooting their problem and demonstrating it fixed. I also answered their questions.

I guess you don't get it Chet. I did share all there is needed to know over the last 15 years. You keep saying such things as if there is nothing shown. People don't have problems making these things work.

Like I wrote, I am working on the new website with the information organized in one place. That is better to do than a hodgepodge ramble on a forum. People need to consider everything about free energy and the fundamental principles rather than just jump into some parts. The methodology is everything.

Did not want to bump the thread ,but see the time window has past for posting back there.
and You posted again , I have no idea about posting names of persons you sold machines to ,Nor was it ever my intention .It must have something to do with you not allowing a demonstration of this simple claim at your customers Lab..again the subject of the Energy Audit here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s)

 will just pay attention for now,and keep trying to find someone who will share .maybe a member here will Share?

Maybe A King will get something working or Stefan's friend.and then a demonstration will happen at the Lab there in Orlando and all the members here can Build it.

in the mean time there are other secrets to investigate ,and honestly I am not mocking you Rick ..about your comment that you help some poor the last 15 years...does that mean we don't need to Bother ? FE forums... hundreds of thousands of members to build and share..
 Not mocking just Stupefied ! I need some tape to hold my Jaw closed now...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 04, 2019, 11:30:35 PM
Sorry I could not talk last night , Thought your "OK" response meant we would talk prior to more postings... at 5:30 this AM I noticed you posted [was surprised] and wanted to Talk priorto making a fresh post [or bumping the thread ] went to the last post I made to leave a Note there for you to read [I do this often to not just keep Bumping the topic with more info or posts.]But this forum has a time limit and that option stops and you can no longer Post.
So I just posted......as always from my heart.  One thing I want to say,the fellow who volunteers at that lab and helps..is just an older [87 years young] retired engineer living in Florida on his pension..I understand after talking to you that you feel uncomfortable with someone with a past in the military sector [his higher classification or experience] ,but I don't want persons to think that Lab is connected in anyway to such a past ,the owner did also let QEG [Morocco Hope girl] have full access to the lab when they were supposedly sharing with the world,but removed them when it became apparent there were issues with the claim.For many years they have helped test ideas and do experiments .IMO a great asset and anyone who carries water for this open source cause is a friend .

We shall see what the future brings here regarding the Gain mechanism mentioned in your Video and on the phone [again]
looking forward to that,...I personally feel there is much confusion around this and has been for many years ,would be amazing to see this .... Hopefully Stefan's friend will share ....or someone else here.

Was good to talk again ,Chet K


.


 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on August 05, 2019, 01:04:54 AM
..again the subject of the Energy Audit here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=1s)
I have done this yesterday and it works exactly as Rick shown. I never tried this setup before with the complete conventional fan ciruit in it (only self triggering setups).
I have identical results: Air Flow is the same, my power consuption is slightly lower, but I have also another output to load secondary batteries for free!
Quote from: ramset
would be amazing to see this .... Hopefully Stefan's friend will share ....or someone else here.
Why you are waiting for someone. DO IT FOR YOURSELF, START AND MOVING ONE DIODE!!!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 05, 2019, 01:36:45 AM
baudirenergie if you could post a pic of your settup which motor and how its wired and which battery you are using Plus your extra output [extra energy how much ?]
If not... no worries .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 05, 2019, 01:38:55 AM
Everyone,
I didn't realize that I had had a good long talk with Chet over 2 months ago before getting on here or OUR. Phone is always better than online. In person is best. So I think the call went well and we will probably talk in a few days again about where to go from here.

The point to mention is that this was the same Orlando Lab that I have dealt with very positively. They did already share with me their experience with using my older big kits to continuously power loads freely as I mentioned a few months back in the one video. They came out to my big meetings prior to that. Now all this was private and I don't disclose private persons. Needless to say, then the Lab has already proven this technology and my claims. While we have been friendly, I just mentioned that I told them that I would not do any joint projects together with them because of the fact that one of them was former Lockheed. But I have shared a lot of information with them and there was no hostilities between us. There are many other Labs that are much bigger and prestigious that have done the same. It's kind of ironic that this turned out to be a case in point. It doesn't really matter if any or how many Labs have confirmed such thing as everyone has to prove such matters out to themselves as I wrote all along. These guys used the one unit to power all of their electrical needs while they were building a house at one point. Other people sailed around the world in the same way. Many others charge some batteries while they run some fans, etc., etc., etc. The information has long been shared for many years now. I'm organizing it in a careful way on a website this summer.

In doing that I am focusing on some principles of free energy to look carefully at the exact context. It is important also understand what we are talking about, why things have progressed the way they have, and how free energy works. We need to start with the very basic systems and progress from there. This is developing the science of free energy.

(One point to add here. These guys wanted more than a battery and/or motor free energy system. And that is understandable. That is what happened after about three years on the forums in those early years. We had the same kind of debates as we have had here over the last 2 months. In the end I answered every question and the skeptics just wanted more free energy. The demands just changed. So all this is old news that has been long settled. The technology has been long confirmed and the issue was doing it easier. So that is why I have given a lot more information on how to do that. I started way back then in showing how you could get more than just 1 to 1 with motors. So you can understand why I have written the way I have here.)

Sorry I could not talk last night , Thought your "OK" response meant we would talk prior to more postings... at 5:30 this AM I noticed you posted [was surprised] and wanted to Talk priorto making a fresh post [or bumping the thread ] went to the last post I made to leave a Note there for you to read [I do this often to not just keep Bumping the topic with more info or posts.]But this forum has a time limit and that option stops and you can no longer Post.
So I just posted......as always from my heart.  One thing I want to say,the fellow who volunteers at that lab and helps..is just an older [87 years young] retired engineer living in Florida on his pension..I understand after talking to you that you feel uncomfortable with someone with a past in the military sector [his higher classification or experience] ,but I don't want persons to think that Lab is connected in anyway to such a past ,the owner did also let QEG [Morocco Hope girl] have full access to the lab when they were supposedly sharing with the world,but removed them when it became apparent there were issues with the claim.For many years they have helped test ideas and do experiments .IMO a great asset and anyone who carries water for this open source cause is a friend .

We shall see what the future brings here regarding the Gain mechanism mentioned in your Video and on the phone [again]
looking forward to that,...I personally feel there is much confusion around this and has been for many years ,would be amazing to see this .... Hopefully Stefan's friend will share ....or someone else here.

Was good to talk again ,Chet K


.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 05, 2019, 02:21:08 AM
Hey B, very good to hear.

I started showing that very simple setup 3 or 4 years ago because it was very easy to do. I realize that is what people want, something simple, even if it isn't a lot of extra energy. People want shorter and easier rather than longer and involved. Everything has to be in 5 minutes or it is an irritation I guess. This also gives a more controlled experiment as you can have the exact same operation (startup and same CFMs) whereas the trigger coil versions, while having better output, are not self-starting (but they do have adjustable speeds and can rotate in either direction).

I expected the kind of responses from people that were given and that was why I didn't bother to show the part number and inside as I had in the first video of this (but I said you can do this with all the fans). I only did this video for people who are open to it. Those who want it to be nothing will just call it more efficient. Well it is more efficient but more than that. If we even forget the 'more than that' in battery charging, is making the input more efficient not an important thing for billions of fans in existence? It's rather amazing that billions of fans have been made to be significantly less efficient than they could be and that some bozo like me who doesn't know anything at all was able to make one simple change to do this. But if we also consider that a battery can be charged, or other load powered, then we realize WHY this is not being done. This implies something much more significant than mere efficiency gains. This is something industry does not want to be known. It changes everything. Well not all industry because thousands of people have been doing this for the last 14 years. Soon people will believe in machine flight when they see in the real world objects with fans on them flying over their heads. Oops, that was over 110 years ago!

Anyway, that is what this thread and forum is for. People share information in video, pictures, words and others try it in the real world. It doesn't take a Lab or EE to prove that it makes a difference.

I have done this yesterday and it works exactly as Rick shown. I never tried this setup before with the complete conventional fan ciruit in it (only self triggering setups).
I have identical results: Air Flow is the same, my power consuption is slightly lower, but I have also another output to load secondary batteries for free! Why you are waiting for someone. DO IT FOR YOURSELF, START AND MOVING ONE DIODE!!!
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 05, 2019, 07:39:16 PM

Referring to the attached pic from Rick's brushless DC fan video, and the one baudirenergie replicated, I have a question:


From the perspective of the person conducting this experiment, what signs should they be looking for to indicate that the experiment is a success?


I have no issue nor argument about the identical fan output in both circuit configurations, as that is obvious from the schematic. What I do question is whether including the second battery in the flyback loop (and its charging effect) constitutes experimental proof of overunity.


In the first scenario (left circuit configuration), the unused energy stored in the motor coil is burned off in the flyback diode and the winding resistance of the motor coil. In the second scenario (right circuit configuration), the unused energy stored in the motor coil is burned off in the diode, the battery, and the winding resistance of the motor coil.


Unless there is some heretofore unknown "process" that takes place inside the battery due to the pulses that super-potentializes it (or something), there is no OU effect taking place with this circuit configuration.


So I ask my question above; how does one "know" when they have hit success with this experiment?


And as an aside Rick, I want to address the fact that you have called me a liar here in at least one post. Although there is always the possibility that I am wrong that this circuit configuration (or any variant of it) does not produce overunity (which I doubt), I most certainly have not lied with that assertion; I have no reason to.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on August 05, 2019, 08:54:17 PM
I propose such complicated experiment yet quite simple for experienced EE gurus here .Replace both batteries with capacitors and add DC-DC converter (possibly isolated one) to that output capacitor to recharge input capacitor so any excess energy will be visible in extended runtime of motor. Surely some overvoltage protection will be needed.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 05, 2019, 09:27:07 PM
Rick,


I'll also mention that my assertion that you've grossly over-estimated the output power of your LED's is just that, an assertion or technical opinion. It is not a lie.


You seem to be confusing lies with opinions. I have no reason to lie about anything.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on August 05, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
poynt99, Void
May i ask you guys why is there any problem of calling inductive spikes as counter emf when the equation which calculates both is the same?
cemf=-L*ΔΙ/Δt
After all, an inductive spike is a result of opposition to current change isn't it like that?

Hi Jeg, They are related in that they are both voltages generated by a coil, but there is a major difference.
If I apply a voltage Vi to a coil, the coil then generates a voltage that is in opposition
to the applied voltage Vi. Since this generated voltage is in opposition to the applied
voltage Vi, it is referred to as 'counter EMF' or 'back EMF'.

Now, if I then disconnect my voltage source Vi from the coil, the coil no longer has a voltage
applied to it, The magnetic field around the coil collapses and creates a voltage spike which
is the same polarity as Vi was (in other words this generated voltage spike is not in opposition)
and which acts to try to keep the current that was flowing in the coil going. This inductive switching voltage
spike is an assisting or aiding voltage. It is not acting counter to the original applied voltage Vi, so it shouldn't
be referred to as 'counter EMF' or 'back EMF'.

All the best...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 06, 2019, 12:47:12 AM
Darren,
This is what you wrote:
 https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3796.msg76645#msg76645
"In my estimation based on the relative brightness of the LEDs to the background lighting, I'd say all of the LEDs are barely, barely "ON". I think Rick has grossly overestimated his output power by a factor of between 150 and 250 times. That would yield each LED using between 2mW and 5mW roughly"

This is so exaggerated so that is a lie. The bulbs don't even come on at all until they are powered with 10 times that power (that is 50mW). I was actually surprised that you of all people would say that. This showed everyone just how far off you are and why no one would ever succeed on OUR if you are the gatekeeper. The bulbs were actually around 0.5W so you are off by 100 times! You are not some ignorant joe shmoe so that is what makes it a lie. An intentional attempt to mislead people about this. It doesn't bother me because I don't expect people to believe anything in the videos. They can do their own testing, as many have. You guys wouldn't be so into this if you thought I was off by 100 to 250 times.  :o Someone who is that far off only merits at  ;) and then everyone just moves on. Anyone who spent so much time on someone who was off by 100 times is a real fool who wastes time. But someone who knows it is true and wants people to not believe it is true will write such things.

Rick,
I'll also mention that my assertion that you've grossly over-estimated the output power of your LED's is just that, an assertion or technical opinion. It is not a lie.
You seem to be confusing lies with opinions. I have no reason to lie about anything.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 06, 2019, 02:23:20 AM
Darren,
That is exactly my point. Conventional systems ignore all the potential that is available as you do to in saying the energy is equally "burned off" with or without the battery. I am just showing the super basics here. And as a result the motor draws significantly less input energy and produces additional useful output. The purpose is to open a door for people to ask why isn't this being done? You should be saying, well that is cool Rick. But you will never give me any credit. I also have solved one of the biggest environmental problems on earth, which also solves one of the biggest alternative energy problems as well: battery replacement. I guess that earns no respect either.

In light of Brad's attempt to trash me on my youtube channel about claiming this fan is 50% efficient, today I called the owner of that company who makes that fan (and over 5000 models), and he said that fan was 94% efficient. BLDC motors are generally considered to be between the range of 80-96% efficient.

Once people understand this kind of engineering then they can multiply these processes again and again as I have shown. You can actually create endless additional reactive loops off of the motor coil negative loop. That is the same kind of thing Benitez did 100 years ago and what Barrett was getting at here:

"Tesla's approach to electrical engineering addresses primarily the reactive part of electromagnetic field-matter interactions, rather than the resistive part. His approach is more comparable with the physics of nonlinear optics and many-body systems than with that of single body systems. It is fundamentally a nonlinear approach and may be contrasted with the approach of mainstream electrical engineering, both linear and nonlinear. The nonlinear aspects of mainstream EE are based on feedback in the resistive field, whereas the nonlinearity in Tesla's approach is based on oscillators using to-and-fro shuttling of energy to capacitive stores through non-circuit elements attached to circuits. These oscillator-shuttle-circuit connections result in adiabatic nonlinearities in the complete oscillator-shuttle-circuit systems (OSCs). As a development of this approach, 3-wave, 4-wave...nwave mixing is proposed here using OSC devices rather than laser-matter interactions. The interactions of oscillator-shuttles (OS) and circuits (C) to which they are attached as monopoles forming OSCs are not describable by Kirchhoff's and Ohm's laws. It is suggested that in the OSC formulation, floating grounds are functionally independent and do not function as common grounds. Tesla employed, rather, a concept of multiple grounds for energy storage and removal by oscillator-shuttles which cannot be fitted in the simple monolithic circuit format, permitting a many-body definition of the internal activity of device subsystems which act at different phase relations." Tesla's nonlinear oscillator-shuttle-circuit (OSC) Theory. T. W. Barrett. 1991. Compared with linear, nonlinear-feedback and nonlinear-element electrical engineering circuit theory.

I know this may be hard to read and understand but I am trying to illustrate these advanced concepts in simple ways. Like I said, if you go back to Faraday and Maxwell (and here Tesla) you have free energy as permissible in these ways. Or you can continue on with establishment lower level electrical engineering and pay for your electric. Have you not realized that the Maxwell equations were truncated so that everything would be symmetrical and under unity as a result? Like I wrote, if you are not willing to deal with the foundations of electrical history, theory, and practice, then there is no point to saying you are searching in OU research. Conventional Maxwell theory is linear theory in which the scalar and vector potentials appear to be arbitrary and defined by boundary conditions of choice gage. It must be extended, or generalized to a non-Abelian form. The potentials have more than mathematical significance, they have real physical significance. As Barrett specifies above, when extended to higher symmetry forms, Maxwell's theory possesses non-Abelian commutation relations, and addresses global (i.e. nonlocal in space), as well as local phenomena with the potentials used as local-to-global operators. When thus extended we have the ability to venture beyond the closed resistive under unity field existence. It is like a blind person seeing for the first time. Conventional theory/circuitry is only part of the picture and that is why they clamp off this negative energy and treat it as meaningless. And this is why suppressors are there (and I mean both snubber systems and so-called experts). There is no place for Faraday's "electrotonic state", Maxwell's "free energy" equation, Tesla's real shuttle circuits, Benitez free "Generation of Electrical Currents", etc. That science is forbidden because it eliminates the selling of power. And yet these are the founders of modern electrical systems! Yet what they actually found was much more than what you are taught today.

You have to come to grips with this before you try and critique OU claims. Because if you are arguing from conventional theory, as you have been, then you have no foundation or basis as that is only a part of electrical phenomena and processes. Once you come to grips with the fact that the world is bigger than the arbitrary limitations the profit-based institutions have put on you then you will be free indeed to see much more (as these founders did). Then you can see that the A potentials have real physical significance as Maxwell wrote, and you can make use of that information as I have. You will then not try and make everything symmetrical but exploit disequilibrium relationships. You won't mock and suppress asymmetry but maximize it. The fan is just the slightest sliver and hint introduction to this other world you haven't begun to understand. This technology is real and it is used. It is not understood by college level engineers who are crafted sheeple to perpetuate such limitations.

Referring to the attached pic from Rick's brushless DC fan video, and the one baudirenergie replicated, I have a question:
From the perspective of the person conducting this experiment, what signs should they be looking for to indicate that the experiment is a success?
I have no issue nor argument about the identical fan output in both circuit configurations, as that is obvious from the schematic. What I do question is whether including the second battery in the flyback loop (and its charging effect) constitutes experimental proof of overunity.
In the first scenario (left circuit configuration), the unused energy stored in the motor coil is burned off in the flyback diode and the winding resistance of the motor coil. In the second scenario (right circuit configuration), the unused energy stored in the motor coil is burned off in the diode, the battery, and the winding resistance of the motor coil.
Unless there is some heretofore unknown "process" that takes place inside the battery due to the pulses that super-potentializes it (or something), there is no OU effect taking place with this circuit configuration.
So I ask my question above; how does one "know" when they have hit success with this experiment?
And as an aside Rick, I want to address the fact that you have called me a liar here in at least one post. Although there is always the possibility that I am wrong that this circuit configuration (or any variant of it) does not produce overunity (which I doubt), I most certainly have not lied with that assertion; I have no reason to.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 06, 2019, 02:44:05 AM
I haven't been arguing so much from theory, as much as real world past observations.


As such, it comes down to the bench; if one builds your brushless DC fan setup with a charge battery, how does one know if they have succeeded in producing free energy?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 06, 2019, 03:52:57 AM
The point is that there is a difference, as Barrett pointed out, between single and many-body systems. "Burning off" or clamping out the real potential makes for a monolithic circuit that will always be under unity. This is why I made a point to bring out the many-body system with the name selfish circuits or loving paths. The single circuit loop is merely a local body and does not consider global relations or with other bodies. The loop is an entity unto itself. But that was not so to Tesla and his shuttle circuits, often with one wire connections. This does not make sense to conventional engineers limited to single body symmetrical closed loops. You guys can't consider many-body systems where elements are independent and yet mutually benefited. To you it is all just a single body with a common ground. But the fan circuit modification is actually a many-body system with a floating ground exactly as Barrett mentioned below. The second body is not part of the first body. It is independent. Darren is trying to treat them both as a single body in his assumption. That is to be expected from his post-Maxwellian context. Naturally, the combined energy output of both loops are going to be considered as part of the input energy. This is the argument given. If that was the case then I continue to ask, then why are people not doing this (well I am)? Barrett points out that these independent loops are not part of the primary Kirchhoff loop. Kirchhoff holds only as a special case at a steady state in a monolithic circuit. Independent branch loops or elements are beyond that loop and rule. Snubber systems are just covering up the dirty little secret of Maxwellian/Tesla free energy.

Further, these loops with additional loads can be multiplied as I have shown and explained for years.

Further to the point, circuit parts can result in multiple useful load outputs. If a motor was 96% efficient according to the work done and input energy supplied, and with modification allowed for such negative electrical output that amounted to 10% or 50% or 90% or 100%, etc., of the input energy then obviously we have two outputs when only one has been considered by conventional engineers. What if, like Robert Adams, we also have substantially extra heat output in addition to both of these? What if, like I have shown, we have additional EMP coils being influenced by the radiation in addition to these three outputs? What if, we have this all as a resonant circuit where the capacitor is also the water cell splitting water at the same time all this is happening? What if, and the possibilities continue. The selfish circuit is monolithic also in function and not just in its isolation. Because you are not allowed to do more work than what the input allows for because of some arbitrary law some men agreed to force upon everyone. This is the ultimate dogma you must agree to to be part of the club. So in the fan they cannot allow for electrical output along with the mechanical. Because the mechanical and resistive losses makes up the Kirchhoff loop unity. That is the selfish circuit. Changing the snubber to a useful load allows for MORE work to be done (it's not the same thing!). It is a Loving Giving Independent nonlinear path. It is breaking the arbitrary symmetry. It is nonlinear in several ways. It is in addition to the primary loop. And the work that can be done because of it in the load is relative to the size of the load in that path. It also can result in several other nonlinear experiences (like thermal dynamics). And again, it can be multiplied while making additional positive impact upon the primary loop as I have shown for years. 'Multiplied' in repeating with additional loops off the secondary loop.

This is only possible in the third part of electrical engineering: the nonlinear reactive side. It is rightly considered impossible if you are limited to merely linear science, or nonlinear resistive. Naturally you guys always want to make everything linear or the nonlinear clamped down with resistors. Now we can use resistors in the end to make final measurements, but we can't have a properly nonlinear reactive science and processes with resistive clamps at the heart of the process--as they are mutually exclusive and two different systems. They can be part of different loops in a many-body system like Gabriel Kron wrote: "A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author’s years-long search." A linear or nonlinear resistive body are closed paths. Only the nonlinear reactive allows for a truly open path to the ether. The closed path/loop is Kirchhoff territory. The open path is Faraday, real Maxwell, Tesla, Kron, Barrett, etc. You can't mix these together and try and make them the same thing just because they are out of phase and connected in a floating ground relationship. That is what makes the independent.

This may sound all theoretical and that is why I have illustrated this with motors, coils, capacitors for the last 15 years. This IS the original electromagnetic theory. It IS the advanced electromagnetic theory today as I have quoted a tiny sample. The motive for it's suppression is well understood by members of these forums. There have been plenty of people bringing forth these processes in patent and demonstration over the last 150 years. I'm not making this stuff up. I am quoting these people and replicating their claims (even Benitez). You can mock it all you want but it is real history. I just got a physical copy of Maxwell's original book in the mail today because I am an armature historian and publisher of that time period.

I gave this video as a test of sorts as well. I knew some would mock me for it as we can see already. Some would over-extend themselves and make themselves look silly AGAIN. You see it really doesn't matter how much free energy is experienced. Some people only want a lot and they will attack you if you give them less than what they want. But I say, start with a little and admit it. Call it what it is. Then when you receive this as a gift with thankfulness you will understand the difference between the selfish circuit and loving paths and be in a place to receive more grace as your love grows  ;D

Darren,
That is exactly my point. Conventional systems ignore all the potential that is available as you do to in saying the energy is equally "burned off" with or without the battery. I am just showing the super basics here. And as a result the motor draws significantly less input energy and produces additional useful output. The purpose is to open a door for people to ask why isn't this being done? You should be saying, well that is cool Rick. But you will never give me any credit. I also have solved one of the biggest environmental problems on earth, which also solves one of the biggest alternative energy problems as well: battery replacement. I guess that earns no respect either.

In light of Brad's attempt to trash me on my youtube channel about claiming this fan is 50% efficient, today I called the owner of that company who makes that fan (and over 5000 models), and he said that fan was 94% efficient. BLDC motors are generally considered to be between the range of 80-96% efficient.

Once people understand this kind of engineering then they can multiply these processes again and again as I have shown. You can actually create endless additional reactive loops off of the motor coil negative loop. That is the same kind of thing Benitez did 100 years ago and what Barrett was getting at here:

"Tesla's approach to electrical engineering addresses primarily the reactive part of electromagnetic field-matter interactions, rather than the resistive part. His approach is more comparable with the physics of nonlinear optics and many-body systems than with that of single body systems. It is fundamentally a nonlinear approach and may be contrasted with the approach of mainstream electrical engineering, both linear and nonlinear. The nonlinear aspects of mainstream EE are based on feedback in the resistive field, whereas the nonlinearity in Tesla's approach is based on oscillators using to-and-fro shuttling of energy to capacitive stores through non-circuit elements attached to circuits. These oscillator-shuttle-circuit connections result in adiabatic nonlinearities in the complete oscillator-shuttle-circuit systems (OSCs). As a development of this approach, 3-wave, 4-wave...nwave mixing is proposed here using OSC devices rather than laser-matter interactions. The interactions of oscillator-shuttles (OS) and circuits (C) to which they are attached as monopoles forming OSCs are not describable by Kirchhoff's and Ohm's laws. It is suggested that in the OSC formulation, floating grounds are functionally independent and do not function as common grounds. Tesla employed, rather, a concept of multiple grounds for energy storage and removal by oscillator-shuttles which cannot be fitted in the simple monolithic circuit format, permitting a many-body definition of the internal activity of device subsystems which act at different phase relations." Tesla's nonlinear oscillator-shuttle-circuit (OSC) Theory. T. W. Barrett. 1991. Compared with linear, nonlinear-feedback and nonlinear-element electrical engineering circuit theory.

I know this may be hard to read and understand but I am trying to illustrate these advanced concepts in simple ways. Like I said, if you go back to Faraday and Maxwell (and here Tesla) you have free energy as permissible in these ways. Or you can continue on with establishment lower level electrical engineering and pay for your electric. Have you not realized that the Maxwell equations were truncated so that everything would be symmetrical and under unity as a result? Like I wrote, if you are not willing to deal with the foundations of electrical history, theory, and practice, then there is no point to saying you are searching in OU research. Conventional Maxwell theory is linear theory in which the scalar and vector potentials appear to be arbitrary and defined by boundary conditions of choice gage. It must be extended, or generalized to a non-Abelian form. The potentials have more than mathematical significance, they have real physical significance. As Barrett specifies above, when extended to higher symmetry forms, Maxwell's theory possesses non-Abelian commutation relations, and addresses global (i.e. nonlocal in space), as well as local phenomena with the potentials used as local-to-global operators. When thus extended we have the ability to venture beyond the closed resistive under unity field existence. It is like a blind person seeing for the first time. Conventional theory/circuitry is only part of the picture and that is why they clamp off this negative energy and treat it as meaningless. And this is why suppressors are there (and I mean both snubber systems and so-called experts). There is no place for Faraday's "electrotonic state", Maxwell's "free energy" equation, Tesla's real shuttle circuits, Benitez free "Generation of Electrical Currents", etc. That science is forbidden because it eliminates the selling of power. And yet these are the founders of modern electrical systems! Yet what they actually found was much more than what you are taught today.

You have to come to grips with this before you try and critique OU claims. Because if you are arguing from conventional theory, as you have been, then you have no foundation or basis as that is only a part of electrical phenomena and processes. Once you come to grips with the fact that the world is bigger than the arbitrary limitations the profit-based institutions have put on you then you will be free indeed to see much more (as these founders did). Then you can see that the A potentials have real physical significance as Maxwell wrote, and you can make use of that information as I have. You will then not try and make everything symmetrical but exploit disequilibrium relationships. You won't mock and suppress asymmetry but maximize it. The fan is just the slightest sliver and hint introduction to this other world you haven't begun to understand. This technology is real and it is used. It is not understood by college level engineers who are crafted sheeple to perpetuate such limitations.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 06, 2019, 04:11:50 AM
That's all very nice Rick,


But when it comes down to the bench; if one builds your brushless DC fan setup with a charge battery, how does one know if they have succeeded in producing free energy?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 06, 2019, 04:30:56 AM
That's convenient to say while you nevertheless argue from your assumptions based upon such theory. You can't get around this Darren. Either you accept the limited truncated linear Maxwell theory or you see it as limited as Maxwell himself showed from the real 20 equations. What you say is the former. This is why I pressed G along these lines. If your foundation is making free energy impossible then people need to know this.

You want real world observations, then go look up what has been proven in the Labs along these lines over the last 70 years. You can replicate those examples. Then you will see that I am doing this a lot more practical and easier.

The claims are not merely devices. They pertain to how it works. Without a foundation our words and testing is meaningless. It's like the gender craze debate. If someone just wants to call themselves a horse when they are a man, then what is the point of talking at all? If you come here with assuming, as you have, then you will go out with what you go into it with. My two posts cover this enough to justify my point here. Everything you assume or claim needs justification as well.

Since we are not together in the real world, and you were not there at my videos or meetings to actually the "background" then this is purely theoretical anyway. There is no science being done on this forum or through this forum. It is merely an exchange of ideas, therefore theoretical. If you want real world then you have to experiment yourself or observe someone else very carefully (as well as thoroughly know the details of the parts, environment, meters (and calibration, etc.).

From your statement about the bulbs your "observations" leave you with zero credibility.

They have to answer that question for themselves. Now you can see why the theory is important. They really have to know what is going on in order to properly judge. You have come from a very limited perspective and that is why you made the statement AS you did. You assumed several things. This is why I went to such lengths to show you the basis for your assumptions. If I power all of New York city from such output, you will just say it is part of the input energy.  ;) That is why I didn't give a big example in these several videos. Just enough to foster these responses that disregard additional output. But notice I wrote the other day that you all need to understand what the real efficiency of a motor is before you go into this. I wrote that days before that comment was put on my youtube comments today. So then when you have determined that the input energy is causing mechanical work to be done with very small percentage of losses--say motor is 98% efficient at 30W--and you modify the circuit so that it runs the same but additionally puts out (in an independent loving path loop) 10% or 50% or 90% of the input energy, then you know you have free energy Darren. But that is why I also wrote that you guys will probably never agree upon the efficiency of a motor so that no matter how much electrical output is generated in addition to the motor drive it will always be considered as a fraction of the input energy. And this is exactly what Brad did today in saying the fan was 50% efficient. So you exaggerate the bulbs light by 100 times, and Brad the fan efficiency (not that bad by bad enough). And that's my point in all this...


I haven't been arguing so much from theory, as much as real world past observations.
As such, it comes down to the bench; if one builds your brushless DC fan setup with a charge battery, how does one know if they have succeeded in producing free energy?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 06, 2019, 04:47:14 AM
No Darren, it is not nice at all. It is a massive conspiracy for the purpose to intentionally deceive millions of students over the last 140 years resulting in perpetuating slavery. Your brushing it off shows your unwillingness to consider the founding pioneers of our essential electrical systems. Stienmitz and many others could be added to that list of pioneers. So far I see no evidence that any of you, who consider yourselves as experts, are actually experts in that or even know what your training is based upon. All I hear is basic level engineering that is purely linear. You need to stay on the conventional alternative energy forums that deal with DC and basic AC systems if you want to insist upon linear perspectives only.
I have answered the last part in the last post.

That's all very nice Rick,
But when it comes down to the bench; if one builds your brushless DC fan setup with a charge battery, how does one know if they have succeeded in producing free energy?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on August 06, 2019, 05:06:46 AM
I've just received mail from Mr. Gear.
His team tested Rick's two and three battery system and measurement showed underunity in both test.
However, they also purchased through third person Rick's kit and will analyze it and make transient power measurement within next few days, along with some more complicated tests involved looped reactive power.
For the tests been precise, team has been split into two.
Every group will conduct its own methods with state of the art equipement.
Result of each group will be evaluated by Mr. Gear and his consultants.

The goal of test is determine does motor/load kit is COP>1, or OU, and if not, how efficient they are.
I dont have information what kit they purchase and Mr. Gear explaimed that he will reveal only test results, but not data and videos made during test.
Data and videos will remain in company possesions and can be viewed only through bussines agreement, after Rick will be contacted if test will be positive.
At least he will release final conclusion in public, which can not hurt company interest.

I think this is fair from his side. At the end he represents company interests and even final conclusion is much.

If test show positive results, Rick will be contacted and he will be presented with bussines proposal.

From his words test will be conducted very professional and with top gear which exists.
He mentioned possible complex measurements involved reactive power loop, but lots of what he spoke is out of my league.

So, stefan, you asked me to build it. I cant.
But found person who can and it is not problem for him.
Actually, I will be glad if results turns positive, and this whole story ends well.
Finally, Mr. Gear has possibility to do.it and I believe he will.

He said that every investigation of his which turns out even partially success was good for company and bussines deal has been made.
Until now he did not find true self runner but he found few very clever solutions which company paid well and inventors were satisfied.
True results were published through real patents which can actually be build and work.

I hope this will help,

Cheers!
So what sense makes it, if they just said, they did the test and will not show any evidence of it ??? lol...
My friend did also build the same setup as in Rick´s latest video with the 2 brushless motors and he also got it to work.
I hope I can convince him to show a bit of it...
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 06, 2019, 05:14:52 AM
(snip...)But notice I wrote the other day that you all need to understand what the real efficiency of a motor is before you go into this. I wrote that days before that comment was put on my youtube comments today. So then when you have determined that the input energy is causing mechanical work to be done with very small percentage of losses--say motor is 98% efficient at 30W--and you modify the circuit so that it runs the same but additionally puts out (in an independent loving path loop) 10% or 50% or 90% of the input energy, then you know you have free energy Darren. But that is why I also wrote that you guys will probably never agree upon the efficiency of a motor so that no matter how much electrical output is generated in addition to the motor drive it will always be considered as a fraction of the input energy.(snip...)
I'm totally fine with any efficiency motor you choose. If it is a 98% efficient motor to start with, then fine. It has no bearing on the final outcome as far as I am concerned.


Now concerning the highlighted portion of the quote, I ask the following:


How does one determine the percentage of input energy being put out in the flyback loop?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 06, 2019, 05:57:38 AM
Darren,
That is the point of the debate here. You are claiming that any output in the negative loop is a faction of the input or that the primary loop/forward phase is one part and the negative loop the remaining. So if the motor is 98% efficient with a 100W input and if the negative loop produces 10W of work, or 50 or 100W then obviously the loop is not a fraction of the input. Or if the batteries can be rotated around, etc. The flyback loop is not part of the input energy. Read the posts I wrote tonight.

I'm totally fine with any efficiency motor you choose. If it is a 98% efficient motor to start with, then fine. It has no bearing on the final outcome as far as I am concerned.
Now concerning the highlighted portion of the quote, I ask the following:
How does one determine the percentage of input energy being put out in the flyback loop?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 06, 2019, 06:10:58 AM
Quote
...and you modify the circuit so that it runs the same but additionally puts out (in an independent loving path loop) 10% or 50% or 90% of the input energy, then you know you have free energy...
The above quote is from your post (your phrasology and use of the "percentage of input energy" reference, not mine).

How does one determine the percentage part of your quote?

The "independent loving path loop" is the flyback loop consisting of the flyback diode, the charge battery, and the coil winding, is it not?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 06, 2019, 07:11:34 AM
Darren,
Context is important. To be more clear let's say "percentage of" what the "input energy" took to power the motor and the losses. Percentage comparison only, not percentage of it. I've been saying in several different ways that the input energy is separate from what is charging the battery. It is a different phase and direction (and type). Again, percentage as in if it takes 100W to run the motor that is 98% efficient, and 10W (which is merely 10%) or 50W or 100W is produced in the load or charging battery then obviously the 10W or 50 or 100W is not part of the input energy. "Percentage" of the electrical output in the battery is not important. I am merely talking about the hypothetical that if it takes so much W to run the motor then there is nothing left to produce an electrical output. Bottom line.

Yes the coil is part of that loop if I am understanding where you are going with that question. But it is out of phase and the negative energy is, if resulting in more work done than what can be accounted for from the input energy (100W minus the work of the motor and losses), shows that it is truly independent and above unity.

The above quote is from your post (your phrasology and use of the "percentage of input energy" reference, not mine).

How does one determine the percentage part of your quote?

The "independent loving path loop" is the flyback loop consisting of the flyback diode, the charge battery, and the coil winding, is it not?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: forest on August 06, 2019, 07:50:28 AM
IMHO The flyback ouput is the same as input minus loses , because motor do not consume current and energy is only consumed when magnetic dipoles are broken as a heat and EMF inside the motor. In other factors motor is just a coil and this is boost converter.

Or maybe in other words : motor is COP = 2 (well almost , because some resistive loses), but in "normal way operation" the duplicate of input energy is lost (like the transfer of energy between two capacitors, remember ?) and it become COP < 1.
I'm not sure however if the duplicate is intrinsic nature of magnetic fields or just interaction with Earth's field.

P.S. Above is just a theory of course , unless confirmed
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 06, 2019, 01:41:35 PM
Hi Jeg, They are related in that they are both voltages generated by a coil, but there is a major difference.
If I apply a voltage Vi to a coil, the coil then generates a voltage that is in opposition
to the applied voltage Vi. Since this generated voltage is in opposition to the applied
voltage Vi, it is referred to as 'counter EMF' or 'back EMF'.

Now, if I then disconnect my voltage source Vi from the coil, the coil no longer has a voltage
applied to it, The magnetic field around the coil collapses and creates a voltage spike which
is the same polarity as Vi was (in other words this generated voltage spike is not in opposition)
and which acts to try to keep the current that was flowing in the coil going. This inductive switching voltage
spike is an assisting or aiding voltage. It is not acting counter to the original applied voltage Vi, so it shouldn't
be referred to as 'counter EMF' or 'back EMF'.

All the best...

That's actually incorrect Void.
When the source is disconnected from an inductor,and the magnetic field collapses around the inductor,the voltage across the inductor invert's,and is of opposite polarity to that of the source,as the inductor is no longer the sink,it is the source.

When a voltage is dropped across an inductor,current will start to flow,and a magnetic field builds.
When the voltage source is disconnected,the magnetic field now starts to collapse and cut through the windings in the opposite direction. This causes a voltage inversion across the coil,but the current will continue to flow in the same direction through the coil. 


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 06, 2019, 02:02:14 PM
In AC-circuit : positive half period ( to load) + negative half period( back to source: battery or energy provider ) :                                              for circuit frequenzy 50/60 Hz stability !
Net-grid controled fixed sinus Voltage / current !
The invention against "fix/-ed 3000/3600 RPM normated " electric devices :         
       
              variable speed/frequency drive/ controler !
    Up to 75% power savings. ! Or up to  400% use from the before electricity consume !
+ no-/load electric device controle

forest : the industry could double the output from each motor or generator device , electricity-to-torque and torque-to-electricity , but the the total global industry would become changed !
Reference : Fred Miekka publications,Akio Hara generator,geminielectricmotors,Catalan Hallbach array motoret cet.
Not  cw or ccw : both ! using in the same time !Negative permanent magnet field and positive permanent magnet field
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on August 06, 2019, 02:21:42 PM
So what sense makes it, if they just said, they did the test and will not show any evidence of it ??? lol... 
... 
Regards, Stefan.
 

Hi Stefan,
   
Exactly!  This has been the point in all the posts written by those members you have put under moderation (now Void and TinselKoala included!): they all asked for evidence. And all they have got was psywar and then moderation, instead of evidence. 

Stefan, I would suggest you visit Mr Gear's team, you are both in Germany so travel cost should be at a minimum, and make sure in person on the test results they get from the measurements (remember they split into two teams to perform the tests).

Afterall, this is an overunity forum, you run it and there are ou claims. If this is not a reason to make sure about it, then what is?

Regards, Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 06, 2019, 02:22:17 PM


Yes the coil is part of that loop if I am understanding where you are going with that question. But it is out of phase and the negative energy is, if resulting in more work done than what can be accounted for from the input energy (100W minus the work of the motor and losses), shows that it is truly independent and above unity.

And that was my point of my comment on your video Rick.

In your video,your input energy was jumping all over the place,so how did you calculate your input energy?
Second-you do not know how efficient your fan motor is,so once again,how are you making your energy calculations?.How much energy dose it take to move X amount of CFM's of air?,and how much energy was your fan using to achieve this?. Your motor may have been using(i believe in the video,the best i could make out was 24v @ 1.2 amp's) 28.8 watts,but how much energy is required to have an air flow of(i think it was) 1600 CFM at atmospheric pressure.
Third-You had no output measurements at all as far as your inductive kickback output go's,so once again,how are you making your power measurements to claim OU?.

So lets say your fan is 80% efficient(highly unlikely),and your inductive kickback output is 10%. You still have a loss of 10% to heat,and this is a best case scenario. In actuality,your fan would be 50-60% efficient at best,and we(including yourself)have no idea as to what your electrical output was,nor do we have an accurate P/in for your fan either.

So, we have no P/in measurement--
We have no fan efficiency value--
We have no output measurements--
But you claim OU  :o
You also claim the EE guys have no idea what there talking about.
You say we live in a sci-fi make believe world  ::)

I think you have it all backward Rick,as it seems that it is you making claims of the (know so far) impossible,and you do this without any data at all to back up your claim's.

No Rick,it is not us living in the land of make believe  ::)


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on August 06, 2019, 02:40:16 PM
When the voltage source is disconnected,the magnetic field now starts to collapse and cut through the windings in the opposite direction. This causes a voltage inversion across the coil,but the current will continue to flow in the same direction through the coil. 
Hi Void, Brad
Thanks for the answers guys.
I wouldn't describe it better than Tinman. Just to mention again that inductive kickback is calculated by the same equation of cemf as it is also a result of opposition to current.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 06, 2019, 02:46:54 PM
Oh,i see the open source Koala is behind OU.com bars

 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Anyway,im currently looking for one of those fans Rick is using,so as i can replicate Ricks device setup,and crunch some numbers.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 06, 2019, 02:51:42 PM
A" delicate"  relationship is also between electricity endconsumer and e-provider to remark :
                       linear Watt versus sinus "Watt"- Volt-Ampere-Frequency power

220 Volts x 45 Ampere ~ 1000 VA but Vp to Vlinear ~ 700 average Watt( ~ DC)  power content

So who is paying 25 Eurocents per 1000 VA -AC is paying 35 Eurocents per KWh. for AC electricity !
Actually "expensive" solar cells/battery-sets systems are belong this net-grid price !

https://www.pordata.pt/en/Europe/Electricity+prices+for+households+and+industrial+users+(PPS)-1479 (https://www.pordata.pt/en/Europe/Electricity+prices+for+households+and+industrial+users+(PPS)-1479)
Wrong calculation and payment : criminal fake or fraud ?
Radiation heat output : per linear Watt or per " sinus"Watt/VA" ?
Now the E.U.-market endconsumer knows why he does not have  to pay for " displacement current compensation" like
the industrial client, because he pays it intra ( internal price calculation) !

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 06, 2019, 03:38:31 PM
Oh,i see the open source Koala is behind OU.com bars

 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Anyway,im currently looking for one of those fans Rick is using,so as i can replicate Ricks device setup,and crunch some numbers.
"extraordinary technology"- devices challenge :
A. Rick Friedrich
B. http://www.keppemotor.com/institucional/keppe-motor-universe-ceiling-fan/?lang=en
C. https://m.phys.org/news/2015-10-inventor-motor-aims-millions-energy.html

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on August 06, 2019, 04:24:43 PM
I have done this yesterday and it works exactly as Rick shown. I never tried this setup before with the complete conventional fan ciruit in it (only self triggering setups).
I have identical results: Air Flow is the same, my power consuption is slightly lower, but I have also another output to load secondary batteries for free! Why you are waiting for someone. DO IT FOR YOURSELF, START AND MOVING ONE DIODE!!!

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.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void on August 06, 2019, 04:33:43 PM
That's actually incorrect Void.
When the source is disconnected from an inductor,and the magnetic field collapses around the inductor,the voltage across the inductor invert's,and is of opposite polarity to that of the source,as the inductor is no longer the sink,it is the source.

When a voltage is dropped across an inductor,current will start to flow,and a magnetic field builds.
When the voltage source is disconnected,the magnetic field now starts to collapse and cut through the windings in the opposite direction. This causes a voltage inversion across the coil,but the current will continue to flow in the same direction through the coil. 

Brad

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. ;)


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 06, 2019, 09:40:12 PM
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fbadhusha.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/9/5/3895546/ele-pulse-power.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiLsv2I_e7jAhVOUcAKHbJ_C2oQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw15n2Y3-tIhLqGJNmmXXoLp
 only for the given example correct : 15000 VA peak ~ 144 Watt average power
The arithnetical/ technical  CO.P. measurement/ calculation  question/ problem. !?
Rick Friedrich : no, not Joule/cycle( T.Barrett) , but Joule / signal  gives the perfect  base for measurements !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 06, 2019, 09:51:19 PM
Rick Friederich : not Joule/cycle but Joule/signal(=pulse) I accept as measure method !
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fbadhusha.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/9/5/3895546/ele-pulse-power.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiLsv2I_e7jAhVOUcAKHbJ_C2oQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw15n2Y3-tIhLqGJNmmXXoLp
We can and ( let)  do cycles ( signal-/frequency-/time-generator)and signals( dutyfactor) becomes different  !
15000 VA pulsativ ~ 144 Watt DC : this means calculative and measureable " pseudo-Overunity-factor 100+"  !
There is no magic  !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 06, 2019, 10:41:34 PM
The thing to keep in mind in all these things is the entire global environment. What continually happens in these dialogues is that parts and processes are looked at as if they are in a vacuum and are parts unto themselves. This is why I keep stressing real world conditions and testing.

People who take a symmetrical theory and methodology will always look at parts with a sort of 2 dimensional basic vector analysis perspective and will naturally always assume there can be no gain within that circle reasoning. They can either mistake in only looking at things ideally by just following what the books teach or they can do some basic experiments and assume THAT represents all possible relationships. This is because everything is assumed to be linear and under unity. So this leads people to assume that there would be no real difference between using a flyback diode across the coil as there would be in adding a battery or load in series with it.

Why? Because everyone wants to oversimplify science and assumes the outcome. But the impulsing of a coil and the resulting phenomena manifesting after turn off is not an isolated matter. This is not a static process but is highly dynamic with significant effects upon the area around the wires and all associated parts connected.

People just assume a body is just simply made up of individual parts that have all of their actions in themselves. But it is not that way at all. They change as they become part of the whole. They are affected differently by being combined with different parts under different environments. This is why you have to have a topological approach to electrical engineering. Everything is affected by environmental considerations, obviously thermal being agreed upon by everyone. But if we go back to Faraday we can see him beginning to stress such things which gives hope to over unity results as I mentioned.

Again, people want to assume that the coil will do the same things under different conditions. They assume that whether a part or parts are around or attached to the coil it will make no substantial difference. But this is not the case in chemistry, biology, acoustics, and especially in electrodynamics (unless you have a very limited view of things). The assumption results from the fact that they only think in single body circuit conditions. But once we begin to look at the entire physical impact upon the local environment, and especially when other independent bodies come under that influence, we can see things more realistically like in the biological world where relationships are not static but dynamic. In theology and religion we call this being legalistic to boil a general down to a specific occurrence.

In the case of motors all we normally have is the suppression of the spike or at least using the bemf to determine timing, etc. No one considers the highly dynamic environment, which is highly nonlinear, and seeks to benefit from that with connecting up to that "source" as Brad rightly calls it. Placing parts in suitable relationships with that reaction can result in additional gains if you allow it. The point I showed was such an example. Whether you think it is OU or free energy isn't really the point. The point is that I did something than people are not doing which resulted in an immediate gain. Two different forms of gains. My point was to ask the question, why are people not doing this? Because it leads to the more important point that people are ignoring what is freely given to them already. It is just assumed that if there was a way to do things better and get more gains then everyone would be doing it. Obviously that is not the case, especially when the biggest companies in the world are selling electricity and fuel.

The bigger point than the fact that people are not taking advantage of what they already know and can do is that this then points to the fact that people engage in the is/ought fallacy and assume that there can be nothing more than what they know. With regards to parts they think egocentrically if that makes sense. So how does this translate here? The motor coil is viewed merely as tool to produce mechanical force and it's efficiency is based upon the amount of forward current it takes for that action over time. A single purpose part or element in a monolithic circuit. Efficiency is calculated, losses determined, and that is the extent of it. Hooking up anything to the coil would seem pointless if everything is symmetrical and adds up. But Tesla comes along and adds his many-body reactive elements into that environment and shows us that you can do a lot more than what is assumed by two dimensional people.

If we get some useful energy that we didn't before, it should open us up the possibility that maybe if we enlarge upon that idea we can get more. What if we have a much bigger load than a tiny capacitor? Like a battery? And if a battery charges at all, when that was never expected (because after all, what can a transient impulse do to a battery?), then what if we add a bigger battery bank? No one who limits themselves to linear possibilities will even bother to test that out. And if they do, they will just try to disprove it as we can see the same tendencies here. Because there are trillions of dollars riding on the suppression of nonlinear dynamics.

Bottom line is that the coil is not to be looked at as a part unto itself and that its effects under impulsing will be different according to different populated environments. This is what topology is all about in electrodynamics. Mainstream electrical science is not altogether false. The main problem is with it's limited scope. People can mock the fan conversion point, but it is an effective tool to open up these facts.

That's actually incorrect Void.
When the source is disconnected from an inductor,and the magnetic field collapses around the inductor,the voltage across the inductor invert's,and is of opposite polarity to that of the source,as the inductor is no longer the sink,it is the source.

When a voltage is dropped across an inductor,current will start to flow,and a magnetic field builds.
When the voltage source is disconnected,the magnetic field now starts to collapse and cut through the windings in the opposite direction. This causes a voltage inversion across the coil,but the current will continue to flow in the same direction through the coil. 


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 06, 2019, 10:46:53 PM
Maybe if you took some time to type things out properly people may pay attention more and bother to read what you are trying to say. I'm not interested in trying to get inside of people's heads.

Rick Friederich : not Joule/cycle but Joule/signal(=pulse) I accept as measure method !
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fbadhusha.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/9/5/3895546/ele-pulse-power.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiLsv2I_e7jAhVOUcAKHbJ_C2oQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw15n2Y3-tIhLqGJNmmXXoLp
We can and ( let)  do cycles ( signal-/frequency-/time-generator)and signals( dutyfactor) becomes different  !
15000 VA pulsativ ~ 144 Watt DC : this means calculative and measureable " pseudo-Overunity-factor 100+"  !
There is no magic  !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 01:35:30 AM
While that was A point it was not THE point you were making. I do not tolerate rude or baseless accusatory comments. Your point was to call the video and all my videos fraud. And you assumed the motor was 50% efficient when the company said it is 94%. You are always assuming the worst in a very arrogant way.

No the video doesn't have the input jumping all over the place. Obviously it is an impulse motor however. Ideally a battery is better for this experiment but this was what people wanted. The point was that the comparison/conversion was the same. Also, the point was to show one change with advantageous results. That was done and you just can't accept it. Instead you just can't keep yourself from attacking. But who made you the king? Again, you just keep putting your foot in your mouth.

By the way you come across you would have to already know the answer to your questions. Sounds like you are just repeating what you have heard from other people. But when you do that Brad, you destroy your credibility.

The CFMs reading was just in the same spot to do the comparison to show that it was exactly the same with the two fans. It was not showing all the CFMs because I was only on one area.

I make my own power measurements in many ways. Yes I have all the appropriate power analyzers that I don't show in my videos. It is up to everyone to do that for themselves. What I did show was that I was reducing the input energy and also charging a battery significantly. It was not as much as with my other motors with improved circuitry, but it did show that for the same CFMs it took less input and did some charging. Someone else did this and got the same results.

What I got into the battery over time is relative to the size and condition of the battery as I have always said. See my last post for details about that being nonlinear. But if I get anything, then that is an improvement over nothing. Yes if I can run this off a battery and rotate batteries around then that is amazing. That I have done for 14 years now with such fans with a variety of different circuits. That is old news Brad. As I wrote, thousands of people have used these fans all over the world. One guy makes his entire living selling them (and I don't get anything for showing that).

You don't get it Brad. If the fan was 80% efficient then that is not the point. If you can make it take less energy and also put out more work than that is free work. Yes I know that we want self-runners here and the whole bit. But you won't even appreciate any improvement. You don't know what percentage it is. But you do know that it is more work than normal and that was my point. It also allowed for you and others to mock me for showing a significant gain. That was also my point. Now we can see your attitudes that automatically reject positive demonstrations. You guys demand meters and I showed a meter with a controlled experiment that is easy to do and which someone already did here. So that proves that meter readings mean nothing to you guys. If I pull out my Fluke power analyzers you will just reject anything I show in the same way. All will just be one circle argument that it is impossible to have over unity.

You are wanting too much all at once Brad. You just blindly rush into a China shop like bull and have no regard for details. The object is not to prove anything with a video. It is for others to do such things for themselves. There was nothing hard in that. I said that could be done with all the BLDC fans. What you are looking for is something to disprove. You are not at all interested in learning about OU or expanding your experience. You have figured out everything you expect to learn as your words imply. You have a very over simplistic electrical theory and it is not open to the real world.

If the fan is 94% efficient then reducing that input energy makes it even more efficient. Now the losses are still there. The negative energy does not mean that there is no heat produced as before. So the battery charging is not part of that forward loop calculation. That is the other point you don't get. It wasn't used before. And now it is. But read my last post and realize that there is a vast difference between looping it back with a diode and powering a load. And the size of the load also changes because this is nonlinear. And all these words do not even properly represent how the energy works.

Now I do know what the electrical output is when I know the exact capacity of my batteries and charge them and discharge them over time. Or I can use various capacitor banks also. Or I can use transformers, etc.

You have part numbers as I wrote.
You have efficiency numbers as mentioned. But that is not important.
You have your own output measurements. In your case it is whatever you assume beforehand.
I claim OU in the real world for myself. Such things can only be determined in the real world Brad.
The EE guys are a dime a dozen. I know more EE guys than I can count. Apparently there is a difference with the guys that you know and the EEs I know. I know regular and higher level EEs (some of which are at the very top). There is a big difference. Just as there is with those working with linear processes and those working with nonlinear advanced projects. If you can't understand Barrett's works that I have mentioned then you are not in a place to talk about EEs. I have no problem with what any EE says as I will agree with it. It is not what the common EEs say, but what they are not aware of because of their limited studies and experience. I know very specialized EEs doing very critical work in industry and military that work with this processes. Again, if you are open to learning that then read Barrett on electromagnetism as he is a leading authority at the advanced levels (not college level like most people are limited to).

Yes you live in a syfy world as you keep assuming and expecting a video to prove OU. Too much tv and chat time. You need to get to the bench and spend time with others on the bench. But only after you understand how to evaluate your own methodologies and assumptions. Study the history of electromagnetism for a start. Actually read Faraday and Maxwell and hear them out in their own words. Do the same experiments. Then notice what others took away from what they wrote. Actually read Tesla. You complained that people like me misrepresent him. Well I have read everything he wrote that is in the public domain very carefully. And I have done his related experiments and demonstrated them to others. Again, read Barrett on that. This is already proven out Brad. Yes I am just trying to make it easier because I doubt that most or possibly any of the active members here could fully understand those words or experiments. While I wish someone more capable than I could do this instead, at least I am trying to help here.

No Brad, we all make claims in life, in fact every day. Rarely do others expect you to prove the claims you make. And they would find you very strange if you went around addressing them as you do me when they make claims. "Prove to me Bruce, that it was a white male who spilled coffee on you at lunch."  :o  "Prove to me Rick, over the internet, that you do power measurements while proving OU!" "Prove to me Brad, that you even exist!" You are so incensed that you can't even give up on that delusion. Really, all you want to do is try and disprove OU. That is your mission. For you can easily show these things to yourself. That's all I ever hope to do. I don't need recognition. I really don't care what people claim they prove or disprove over the internet. I'm only interested in the real world. I love to get information over the internet as we all do. But that is something different than proof. The only proof we can have here is what you guys have proven so far with this silliness. You keep demonstrating it over and over. And that's the point I can prove...

And that was my point of my comment on your video Rick.

In your video,your input energy was jumping all over the place,so how did you calculate your input energy?
Second-you do not know how efficient your fan motor is,so once again,how are you making your energy calculations?.How much energy dose it take to move X amount of CFM's of air?,and how much energy was your fan using to achieve this?. Your motor may have been using(i believe in the video,the best i could make out was 24v @ 1.2 amp's) 28.8 watts,but how much energy is required to have an air flow of(i think it was) 1600 CFM at atmospheric pressure.
Third-You had no output measurements at all as far as your inductive kickback output go's,so once again,how are you making your power measurements to claim OU?.

So lets say your fan is 80% efficient(highly unlikely),and your inductive kickback output is 10%. You still have a loss of 10% to heat,and this is a best case scenario. In actuality,your fan would be 50-60% efficient at best,and we(including yourself)have no idea as to what your electrical output was,nor do we have an accurate P/in for your fan either.

So, we have no P/in measurement--
We have no fan efficiency value--
We have no output measurements--
But you claim OU  :o
You also claim the EE guys have no idea what there talking about.
You say we live in a sci-fi make believe world  ::)

I think you have it all backward Rick,as it seems that it is you making claims of the (know so far) impossible,and you do this without any data at all to back up your claim's.

No Rick,it is not us living in the land of make believe  ::)


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Mannix on August 07, 2019, 02:14:50 AM
quote from RF
" I'm not interested in trying to get inside of people's heads."

This is harder to believe than the confusion about lead acid batterys sweetspot/temperature variations .

There are many of us ,myself included who have been inspired by initial results of "free energy" using lead acid batterys.

Only to be dissapointed by not being able to get useful work from the system.

That is not to say the battery does not gain voltage because it does . Surface charge is the term used by those who are influenced by this in the "real world".

It still mught be fun for people to buy and experiment with ricks kits ,after all fun and learning is what life is about . Just keep your expectations in check.

Perhaps JB'S spiritual self has infused itself in another who has not so much self awareness.

Dont we all love wikipedia?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_charge
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 03:47:16 AM
Got to love the humor ;D
I have worked closely with batteries all my life, and for the last 15 years with battery charging. I think I know a thing or two about surface charge. I probably have at least one conversation every day about related subjects.
You have to understand how to properly determine the actual capacity of a battery. I have 6 industrial chargers that do that with multiple resistive loads and programing. Once you know the battery's actual capacity then you can do full test runs and see this. This is why I can't do YouTube videos of proper tests that take days or weeks. But I have recorded very long videos.
We are not dealing with surface charge. You may be dealing with desulfating processes, or pushing up voltages on batteries that have no real capacity.
We can run different loads as well. But with batteries you need to run over time when you know what you are doing.

That is not to say the battery does not gain voltage because it does . Surface charge is the term used by those who are influenced by this in the "real world".
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 07, 2019, 04:55:59 AM
We can run different loads as well.


Indeed. Where might we see this?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 05:04:01 AM
Well somewhere in the real world  ::)


Indeed. Where might we see this?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 07, 2019, 07:09:15 AM
While that was A point it was not THE point you were making. I do not tolerate rude or baseless accusatory comments. Your point was to call the video and all my videos fraud. And you assumed the motor was 50% efficient when the company said it is 94%. You are always assuming the worst in a very arrogant way.

No the video doesn't have the input jumping all over the place. Obviously it is an impulse motor however. Ideally a battery is better for this experiment but this was what people wanted. The point was that the comparison/conversion was the same. Also, the point was to show one change with advantageous results. That was done and you just can't accept it. Instead you just can't keep yourself from attacking. But who made you the king? Again, you just keep putting your foot in your mouth.

By the way you come across you would have to already know the answer to your questions. Sounds like you are just repeating what you have heard from other people. But when you do that Brad, you destroy your credibility.

The CFMs reading was just in the same spot to do the comparison to show that it was exactly the same with the two fans. It was not showing all the CFMs because I was only on one area.

I make my own power measurements in many ways. Yes I have all the appropriate power analyzers that I don't show in my videos. It is up to everyone to do that for themselves. What I did show was that I was reducing the input energy and also charging a battery significantly. It was not as much as with my other motors with improved circuitry, but it did show that for the same CFMs it took less input and did some charging. Someone else did this and got the same results.

What I got into the battery over time is relative to the size and condition of the battery as I have always said. See my last post for details about that being nonlinear. But if I get anything, then that is an improvement over nothing. Yes if I can run this off a battery and rotate batteries around then that is amazing. That I have done for 14 years now with such fans with a variety of different circuits. That is old news Brad. As I wrote, thousands of people have used these fans all over the world. One guy makes his entire living selling them (and I don't get anything for showing that).

You don't get it Brad. If the fan was 80% efficient then that is not the point. If you can make it take less energy and also put out more work than that is free work. Yes I know that we want self-runners here and the whole bit. But you won't even appreciate any improvement. You don't know what percentage it is. But you do know that it is more work than normal and that was my point. It also allowed for you and others to mock me for showing a significant gain. That was also my point. Now we can see your attitudes that automatically reject positive demonstrations. You guys demand meters and I showed a meter with a controlled experiment that is easy to do and which someone already did here. So that proves that meter readings mean nothing to you guys. If I pull out my Fluke power analyzers you will just reject anything I show in the same way. All will just be one circle argument that it is impossible to have over unity.

You are wanting too much all at once Brad. You just blindly rush into a China shop like bull and have no regard for details. The object is not to prove anything with a video. It is for others to do such things for themselves. There was nothing hard in that. I said that could be done with all the BLDC fans. What you are looking for is something to disprove. You are not at all interested in learning about OU or expanding your experience. You have figured out everything you expect to learn as your words imply. You have a very over simplistic electrical theory and it is not open to the real world.

If the fan is 94% efficient then reducing that input energy makes it even more efficient. Now the losses are still there. The negative energy does not mean that there is no heat produced as before. So the battery charging is not part of that forward loop calculation. That is the other point you don't get. It wasn't used before. And now it is. But read my last post and realize that there is a vast difference between looping it back with a diode and powering a load. And the size of the load also changes because this is nonlinear. And all these words do not even properly represent how the energy works.

Now I do know what the electrical output is when I know the exact capacity of my batteries and charge them and discharge them over time. Or I can use various capacitor banks also. Or I can use transformers, etc.

You have part numbers as I wrote.
You have efficiency numbers as mentioned. But that is not important.
You have your own output measurements. In your case it is whatever you assume beforehand.
I claim OU in the real world for myself. Such things can only be determined in the real world Brad.
The EE guys are a dime a dozen. I know more EE guys than I can count. Apparently there is a difference with the guys that you know and the EEs I know. I know regular and higher level EEs (some of which are at the very top). There is a big difference. Just as there is with those working with linear processes and those working with nonlinear advanced projects. If you can't understand Barrett's works that I have mentioned then you are not in a place to talk about EEs. I have no problem with what any EE says as I will agree with it. It is not what the common EEs say, but what they are not aware of because of their limited studies and experience. I know very specialized EEs doing very critical work in industry and military that work with this processes. Again, if you are open to learning that then read Barrett on electromagnetism as he is a leading authority at the advanced levels (not college level like most people are limited to).

Yes you live in a syfy world as you keep assuming and expecting a video to prove OU. Too much tv and chat time. You need to get to the bench and spend time with others on the bench. But only after you understand how to evaluate your own methodologies and assumptions. Study the history of electromagnetism for a start. Actually read Faraday and Maxwell and hear them out in their own words. Do the same experiments. Then notice what others took away from what they wrote. Actually read Tesla. You complained that people like me misrepresent him. Well I have read everything he wrote that is in the public domain very carefully. And I have done his related experiments and demonstrated them to others. Again, read Barrett on that. This is already proven out Brad. Yes I am just trying to make it easier because I doubt that most or possibly any of the active members here could fully understand those words or experiments. While I wish someone more capable than I could do this instead, at least I am trying to help here.

No Brad, we all make claims in life, in fact every day. Rarely do others expect you to prove the claims you make. And they would find you very strange if you went around addressing them as you do me when they make claims. "Prove to me Bruce, that it was a white male who spilled coffee on you at lunch."  :o  "Prove to me Rick, over the internet, that you do power measurements while proving OU!" "Prove to me Brad, that you even exist!" You are so incensed that you can't even give up on that delusion. Really, all you want to do is try and disprove OU. That is your mission. For you can easily show these things to yourself. That's all I ever hope to do. I don't need recognition. I really don't care what people claim they prove or disprove over the internet. I'm only interested in the real world. I love to get information over the internet as we all do. But that is something different than proof. The only proof we can have here is what you guys have proven so far with this silliness. You keep demonstrating it over and over. And that's the point I can prove...

Are you going to go running off to Stefan and have me moderated as well?,as it seems that all the long term members here who disagree with you keep getting moderated.

In fact,i have never seen so many members moderated here at one time for telling it as it is. Most of those have been doing this sort of stuff for far longer than you Rick,including myself.
So to say that i should try your setups for myself is laughable,as i have been doing this very thing longer than you have.

You have nothing new Rick--even your !loving path! circuit is Bedini's ssg circuit,which was designed by some one else back in the early 70s.

So Rick,you only make your self look stupid when you think that most of us have never experimented with your setup's. And to call people like Poynt liars is a true example of your stupidity.

You might be able to baffle some with your bullshit,but you will never dazzle most with your brilliance.

You continually claim OU and free energy,but you have never shown it. The reason you can't show it,is because you do not have it-and you never have. Nothing you have Rick is OU or free energy.

So i dont know what you got going on with Stefan to have all these long term-well educated members moderated,but i have decided to get to the bottom of it.
In fact,you and your systems are now my top priority,and i will be testing all of your setup's,and disclosing all my findings on the forums and my youtube channel. But mine will also have accurate power measurements and battery analysis with each test-unlike yours. And i will also be discussing things that have been taking place here at OU.com,regarding the moderation of all these long term members. So if you read this Stefan,you might like to give an explanation as to why the top guys on this forum are being moderated for doing nothing more than telling the truth.

So Rick,as i said--it is not us that is living in a fantasy land--it is you.

So Stefan,i now ask that Rick be made to supply OU.com with the relevant data to back up his claims of overunity,and prove that all the members that objected to his claims were justifiably placed on moderation.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on August 07, 2019, 12:28:39 PM
I agree with all that Brad has posted.  I am sad to say I have lost all respect for Rick.  I was really hoping he had something useful to show us.  But it appears all he has is the same old snake oil salesman crap.  He has posted nothing of any actual substance to back up his claims.  He won't even post such simple information as the actual part numbers for the LEDs he is using. 



While I am disappointed in Rick I am actually shocked by the actions of the admin of this forum.  To put people on moderation because they asked for some technical data to back up the claims is going way over the top.  This will be my last post in this thread.  I will still make posts in some threads by Floor about magnet interactions.  When those threads are finished I will be done with this forum.  This forum has degenerated into another Energetic Forum to promote apparently false claims and products.

Carroll
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 07, 2019, 01:22:34 PM
I agree with all that Brad has posted.  I am sad to say I have lost all respect for Rick.  I was really hoping he had something useful to show us.  But it appears all he has is the same old snake oil salesman crap.  He has posted nothing of any actual substance to back up his claims.  He won't even post such simple information as the actual part numbers for the LEDs he is using. 



While I am disappointed in Rick I am actually shocked by the actions of the admin of this forum.  To put people on moderation because they asked for some technical data to back up the claims is going way over the top.  This will be my last post in this thread.  I will still make posts in some threads by Floor about magnet interactions.  When those threads are finished I will be done with this forum.  This forum has degenerated into another Energetic Forum to promote apparently false claims and products.

Carroll

Indeed,as i stated earlier in this thread.

But Rick was here years ago,doing the very same thing--big claim's ,and not one shred of evidence to back up those claim's.

https://overunity.com/15366/new-free-energy-conferences-in-hamburg-and-chicago/

Thanks to another member at OUR for the above thread link.

In that thread,you will hear Rick moaning about all the troll's (trolls are now those that ask for accurate power measurements from claimants of OU devices)in this forum,and how bad this forum is-->and yet,here he is again  ::)

Rick's !loving path! circuit is just John Bedini's SSG circuit--nothing more.
But it isn't even JB's circuit,as that very circuit was designed back in the early 70's.
Both are nothing more than an inductor being switched on and off,and the flyback sent to a load.
Neither John or Rick actually know what they are looking at,or how to understand the simplicity of what they are doing. Neither seem to understand that the energy of the flyback came from the source in the first place,but rather call it some bullshit like energy from the vacuum,or negative energy. Yes,this is the extent of there understanding.

It is funny to watch--
JB takes some one else's circuit,and calls it his own,and then Rick takes JB's circuit,and calls it his own  ::)

So just remember guy's-->trolls are those that seek truth, ask technical questions,and ask for data that can verifi the claimants claim of having an OU device.
Trolls are also those who replicate said OU device,but where the OU just dose not show up after careful analysis and power measurements-->you are now a troll and a disinformationist.

You have all witnessed in this thread that John Bedini's blood still flows strong through Rick's veins,and the very same tactics are still being used today by Rick as he used when in a business partnership with the Bedini camp-->a tigers stripe's never change.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 07, 2019, 02:41:52 PM
 Well one member asked me to call or talk to Stefan yesterday and I did
And Stefan explained how things were going with his friend Who is doing the Work
“ By the book “
There were a few snafus which were sorted yesterday and hopefully a good video explaining everything should be presented very soon (any moment to few days)


Members must understand regardless of what is written here
From Stefan’s perspective ...there’s a man explaining results of some sort?
 we shall see what happens!
 it will be discussed here when it does happen  and hopefully replicated if there are any members left


I have not really been able to read recent comments here
With my phone
My PC should be sorted in a few days


Chet

Edit for spelling
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 07, 2019, 02:44:56 PM
I have to interject here:  TK was moderated because he called Rick a swear word.  Rightly too.
Brad said that one of  Rick's devices was 50% efficient.  A blatant lie.  He is the one pushing false claims against Rick.
If  you  haters could be a fly on the wall listening to the conversations between Rick and myself you would be ashamed of your selves.
Some guys on another forum even suggest that Rick does not understand VAR.
Jeepers, guys, if you only knew the truth.


 The early information is based on 4 granted Benitez patents.  For your information - in those days (1914 to 1918) you had to have a working model or the patent would say "no model". Benitez produced 4 different working models. Benitez also had patents granted in other countries.


Here is a guy (Rick) offering free information.


Take it or leave it.
But the hatred and vitriol against this free information speaks volumes.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 07, 2019, 03:33:46 PM
Well somewhere in the real world  ::)
Hmm, I was expecting that since you said your device can run loads other than batteries, that surely you had a video demonstrating this.


If you don't, that's fine. I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 07, 2019, 03:57:08 PM

Brad said that one of  Rick's devices was 50% efficient.  A blatant lie.  He is the one pushing false claims against Rick.


Ok Mr a.king21
It is now up to you to show the efficiency of that fan motor,and prove your claim i am a liar.
First you must measure the actual air flow for a given amount of P/in to that fan motor.
Then you have to find out how much energy is within that flow of air-->what is the actual energy value of that flowing air the fan is moving.

Once you have done that,and you have the energy value of the flowing air,and the actual value of electrical energy the fan is consuming,then you can come back and show us all exactly how efficient that fan motor is.

This time,some bullshit efficiency claim by Rick will not cut it.
This time you are going to back up your claims against me with hard data and accurate measurements.

Knowing you and the way you work,you will not deliver any sort of accurate data or measurements,as it has become apparent that you are no different than Rick,where you just make false claims and accuse others of lying without having anything at all to back up those claims and accusations.

So,enough with the bullshit a.king--time to back up your claim's and accusations,although i really believe that any sort of accurate power/energy calculations from you is far above your pay grade.

It's all well and good to call me a liar,but lets see you back it up.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 04:09:32 PM
Yeah I have many videos before YouTube, on YouTube, and also not online.
I'm not going to bother posting links for all you want to do is attack me one way or the other. You guys are not in control of me here and I will post and/or make videos when I want and never for you. If I do a video about anything it will be for nice people who actually appreciate me for giving information. Your attitude is obvious Darren, you always assume the worst and like a troll you attempt to insult to get information. Obviously if a battery can be charged up then other loads can be run instead.

Hmm, I was expecting that since you said your device can run loads other than batteries, that surely you had a video demonstrating this.


If you don't, that's fine. I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on August 07, 2019, 04:19:50 PM
it will be for nice people who actually appreciate me for giving information.

Folks you have got information.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 07, 2019, 05:31:20 PM
Seriously my epididymis is getting sour of all these banging around. Please
who can sponsor me one of these i promise to give you free energy before Christmas..
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 07, 2019, 05:35:58 PM
IF I DO NOT DELIVER I WILL PAY BACK IN FULL OR OFFER MY SPONSOR A FREE
RESIDENTIAL ON THE BEAUTIFUL SEYCHELLES.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 05:49:56 PM
Brad,
Nice way to completely ignore every point and make this into something else. You keep making things worse for yourself. Attacking me is not going to change the fact that you keep blundering. You have admitted your mistakes already two times now. I was wondering if there was going to be a third. Now you are out for blood it seems. At what point did you become a troll Brad? What are you getting to do this here? I mean really, if what you write is true then you all would just laugh and move on. But you all refuse to answer all of my points and yet I answer all of your points. And that is getting old now.  Again, you would only get so worked up if I was hitting a real nerve with you.

No, if I could influence Stefan I would have all rudeness moderated. No forum will ever work that allows hostilities. I have no idea what Stefan is doing with moderation on this forum.

Brad, it is not that you haven't tried things, it is that you don't understand what you are doing. You don't appear to have much of a foundation to be able to understand OU. That's fine as we should all be here to learn. The point is that you guys are so assuming as to what is possible and what is not. It ends up really being a constant argument amounting to saying OU is impossible because you say so. I have repeated asked people to give their basis for believing in OU. Why do you think it is possible. You guys don't want to answer that because it exposes you personally. It shows everyone just what I have been saying, that you are only here to disprove OU. You are especially upset because I have busted the game of showing not only that you can't prove OU claims over the internet, but that you also can't disprove it in the same way. And that is where all the anger comes from here. How dare I take away all your fun. I am ruining people's jobs apparently.

Did I claim to show online anything new? Do I have to have something new? That is not important to me. I don't claim to be anything special. I am merely a backyard mechanic armature historian philosopher. There is so much good that others have shared already in the history of science that there really is no need to do anything new anyway. I have spent many years studying the history of patents and am amazed at what has been shown and done. I really don't find evidence that you know very much electrical history as I mentioned yesterday. And today you show this again when you point out the loving paths point. That is actually a Benitez system. But really it goes back to Tesla in various ways. It is the Tesla Shuttle Circuits as Barrett pointed out in 91 and even referred to in his very important patent. Of course all you can do is divert from the points and try and attack me. But each time you do you only show the points I am making and make yourself silly. It almost seems like you are trying to push these points home. Is that your way of supporting OU claims here?

Yeah, you are just saying what I have said years ago about Bedini. So you are trying to make it out like you are telling me something new. I have done the patent history research on Bedini and have exposed him enough to show everyone that he really wasn't the inventor he made himself to be. I actually show that 1974 patent printed out along with the top spinner running at my meetings while I am speaking and always make that point. So you don't know much about me.

As for the Loving paths idea, I did come up with the term. And it is very important. It is a very effective way of illustrating a fundamental idea. And that is what is needed for people I have come to learn. Just like you use the SSG and everyone knows what that means, so the Loving Paths is now known and is much more fundamental than even the SSG. So even if that was my only contribution, which it isn't, that would be a very good thing. You actually represent the selfish circuit Brad. You argue for it. You suppress the Loving paths. You say it is impossible. You mock it. You illustrate it in your character. You are a case in point. But if you open up your mind you may find that there is more to life than the selfish circuit.

I'm not dazzling and I'm not brilliant. I'm just a realist that takes the time to help people. I don't engage in the sophistry that people are demonstrating here, but I expose it. And that is very important for someone to do. I get many people calling and emailing me who are watching this thread and thanking me for doing this and that is why I have done this. They appreciate someone exposing you bullies.

All you can do is repeat the same thing over and over, you can't do this because you can't. Wow that is very revealing Brad. Again, why don't you just focus on something positive? Surely there is more to do on an OU forum than just make baseless accusations? After all these years don't you have anything constructive to share? Are you just all about trying to disprove OU? And have you failed to experience OU after all these years trying? Wow, maybe it is time to get on with life then. Or maybe you already have it but are forced to take this path??

No Brad, it appears that you guys know this is true and are using every trick in the book to try and suppress it. I only address you according to your words, but it appears that your words are not true. This is common with most people in life that they don't tell you what they really believe and know. I'm not fooled by your words. I have watched you enough over the years to have know that you know more than you are admitting here. I have several friends that have downloaded all of your videos, like the ones you have removed to know that there is more going one with you than you let on here.

Like I keep saying, I reveal OU in the real world. I have shown it for 15 years to over 100,000 people. This includes the general public, hobbyists, professors, PhDs, and scientists and engineers at all levels. People suggested that I need to work with a Lab to confirm these things, but I already worked with that Lab and they used one of my motors to power all their electrical needs while building a big house. There are many more Labs than that. There are thousands of systems being used all over the world. Your ignorance of all this doesn't change that fact. You are just upset because you want some proof to be given over the internet. But you actually don't want that. You just want to attack people that show useful information. The fan modification was showing useful information. You admit that it was an improvement but you will never give me credit for showing that.

So why are you admittedly so obsessed with me Brad. If I am so obviously wrong like you imply and directly say, then why would you have to put forth all that energy? You have thus disproven your own claims. If basic linear theory is the end of the matter, wouldn't it be enough to just show everyone that it is the universal and everything else is just impossible? That is essentially the way most are arguing here. So all that arguing is just hype then if you have to go to the trouble of trying to show something that you already have said is obviously impossible. It's like going to the trouble to try and prove the earth is not flat by flying high enough to see the curvature. Is it really necessary if what you are saying is true? Why all the fuss Brad?

The point is, that not one person here will be able to know the conditions of your parts and environment. Just as you can't prove an OU claim over video and the internet, so you can't disprove such claims either. You guys have made such a big deal about having some Lab prove these things out. Then when you suggested it, I already had proved it with that Lab. Naturally, you are in a panic to find someone else to try and counter act that massive blow to your argument. Just when you think you have me beat, I show something you don't know and you look even worse. You will never admit one thing like this. You really think I am going to tell you everything all in one shot when my goal has been to expose the fallacies of the trolls? While sharing useful information for the sincere I have also set you up for a fall just as predicted. It was not a bad thing to do. I counted on your prejudices. You assumed a lot more than you ought to have assumed. And now you look silly. So now you are trying to save face. Last time I exposed your complete hypocrisy you said that you should just give up. But here you are back at it again. Seems very bipolar. Or are there two different people using the same account here Tinman? Maybe the old Tinman is still there somewhere?

Whatever Stefan does to moderate rudeness on his forum will be commendable. I will help by organizing all the fallacies and attacks you all have made. Then everyone can see how you trolls work to attack this research and drive people off the forums.

Now this is cute: "So Rick,as i said--it is not us that is living in a fantasy land--it is you." This after you demand I prove something over the internet. Who is living in fantasy Brad? I mean, I could understand an 8 year old kid thinking that way. This is derangement.

So you want a dictatorship here? "So Stefan,i now ask that Rick be made to supply OU.com with the relevant data to back up his claims of overunity," Should you be made to back up all of your claims? What about saying the fan is 50% efficient? What about saying here that I have never shown anything ever and I can't? Should you be made to prove that? I mean you would have to have been with me my whole life to be able to prove that. But is this list about forcing people to share information? Especially when they have already shared it. Brad, you always over-argue your point. Your appeals prove too much. They would then apply to you as well. This I exposed on the OUR forum. All disproof claims would require the same evidence. But you do not accept that.

 I have made thousands of claims, I suppose I need to be made to give you all the details. Of course you are worthy of all information aren't you! On the one had you say you know everything about me to know I have never shown anything and am unable to do anything. But on the other hand you demand that I be made to show things that I supposedly am not showing. Which is it Brad? This is desperation again from you. Why are you resorting to such madness? Seems like you are under pressure to do this.

Are you going to go running off to Stefan and have me moderated as well?,as it seems that all the long term members here who disagree with you keep getting moderated.

In fact,i have never seen so many members moderated here at one time for telling it as it is. Most of those have been doing this sort of stuff for far longer than you Rick,including myself.
So to say that i should try your setups for myself is laughable,as i have been doing this very thing longer than you have.

You have nothing new Rick--even your !loving path! circuit is Bedini's ssg circuit,which was designed by some one else back in the early 70s.

So Rick,you only make your self look stupid when you think that most of us have never experimented with your setup's. And to call people like Poynt liars is a true example of your stupidity.

You might be able to baffle some with your bullshit,but you will never dazzle most with your brilliance.

You continually claim OU and free energy,but you have never shown it. The reason you can't show it,is because you do not have it-and you never have. Nothing you have Rick is OU or free energy.

So i dont know what you got going on with Stefan to have all these long term-well educated members moderated,but i have decided to get to the bottom of it.
In fact,you and your systems are now my top priority,and i will be testing all of your setup's,and disclosing all my findings on the forums and my youtube channel. But mine will also have accurate power measurements and battery analysis with each test-unlike yours. And i will also be discussing things that have been taking place here at OU.com,regarding the moderation of all these long term members. So if you read this Stefan,you might like to give an explanation as to why the top guys on this forum are being moderated for doing nothing more than telling the truth.

So Rick,as i said--it is not us that is living in a fantasy land--it is you.

So Stefan,i now ask that Rick be made to supply OU.com with the relevant data to back up his claims of overunity,and prove that all the members that objected to his claims were justifiably placed on moderation.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 06:03:02 PM
So the fan taking less energy to run while putting out an electrical output is not useful? I guess you can fool yourself with just always stating the opposite.
I have no interest in showing you people anything. I am here to show sincere people information. Obviously some people appreciate it. I have shared a lot of very useful things here. And all you guys can do is ignore all of it while attacking me personally. All you can do is type out fallacies like this and that exactly the work of a troll. You may as well have said: "I was really hoping he had some" video "to show us." Or, "I was really hoping he had some" pictures "to show us." Or, "I was really hoping he had some" words "to show us." Acting like something doesn't exist only makes you look silly Carroll.

I agree with all that Brad has posted.  I am sad to say I have lost all respect for Rick.  I was really hoping he had something useful to show us.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 07:16:16 PM
Brad,
Repeating your ignorance only makes you look worse. Saying you are not a troll doesn't change the fact that you are.

You don't know what evidence is. You are confusing evidence with proof because you don't know what you are even talking about. Evidence is revealing information. You are an ignorant and confused person Bard.
Back then I invited people to come to see the evidence in the real world. Brad wants to confuse the real world with cyberworld because he is deranged.

Like I said, I make accurate power measurements and so have many people who use the technology.

It appears you don't even know the basics of the SSG Brad.

You are just overly simplistic and can only resort to such 'nothing-buttery' claims.

"Neither seem to understand that the energy of the flyback came from the source in the first place".
You don't even know where all energy comes from Brad. Tell where the energy from a dipole comes from? You just insult away the facts of the matter. You just argue in a circle. Prove to us your claim here. If this claim was true, and was so obvious, then there would be no debate about it. I wouldn't be able to get any extra energy out by adding a load. If it was so simple as you want it to be then any extra output would demand more input. I mean, we are just moving one diode! If current was just being cycled to a battery instead of back to the coil or input then we would see something different here. The motor would not draw less energy producing the same CFMs and charging a battery. The redirected current would result in less motor action and less CFMs. This is a useful improvement and a real gain. A smaller gain compared to rotating batteries around with an improved circuit, but it shows you are wrong here.

Yesterday you said that the coil became a "source". Now you equivocate. The input is a source. You want to insult and just avoid everything about where the energy is really coming from because you are ignorant about electrodynamics and basic history and theory. It is fine to be ignorant, but you look foolish to trash people for your own ignorance. The input is a source charge, and the coil becomes an additional source charge out of phase with the input. They are not the same thing as you assume. You think you can just sweep everything under the carpet that easy? That is why I wrote to you right away, before you just repeated on youtube comments what I wrote. I wrote that you need to get a highly efficient pulse motor in the mid to high nineties. You assumed the fan was 50% efficient so I called the owner of this big company and he said it was 94% efficient. Regardless, if you actually can be confident that a motor is around there then you can see how foolish you are. But I did say that you will probably never agree to the efficiency of a motor because you don't ever want to expose your ignorance and these things to be true. You even revealed that you don't even know how fans could be determined to be efficient at all. Yet "you are the man, and wisdom will die with you!" Somehow you are the expert on these things because you are old and have been trolling for a long time.

Again, if you have a motor that is properly rated for mid 90s% efficiency at a given RPM to produce a definite amount of work in a specific environment, then all of the input energy is being used to power that motor and the few percent pertains to the losses in the line and circuit. That is very little loss to work with. But if the work is still the same, the input is reduced, the losses still are there, and there exists an additional load, then your are absolutely wrong in your claim here. You cannot account for the reduced input at that high efficiency when the motor runs the same. You also cannot account for extra work being doing with your linear theory Brad. The second phase is not part of the Kirchhoff loop unity. Any extra work done is free energy and OU because more TOTAL work is being done than what is input from the primary source. You can't ever admit to this because you are arguing against OU. It's not really about this example either. I gave you just enough to tease you with this. To bring out your ignorant claim here. You were just hoping that by merely saying something that it would cover over the obvious facts of the matter. You have to actually justify your statement that is admittedly self-contradictory. You mock the Loving paths idea, but it is justified and proven here. When you have such an independent addition to a reactive element (that which was clamped normally to make for an under unity experience) you can have an additional gain. I mean, this is old news Brad. This is the most basic point in OU research. It's not about personalities Brad. These are just more fallacies to divert from the obvious. Yeah, after skeptics realized this years ago they gave up on that and then demanded more free energy, or systems without batteries. There really hasn't been a need to show the basics. But you few people needed to be shown this again. You know this already and are just playing games here.

Actually it is you who resembles Bedini here. You are using the same attacks as he used. You both distorted history as well. You both expect to be believed with no basis for your words. I don't expect people to believe me. That is the big difference Brad. I aggressively push for people to prove things to themselves. That is why you hate me so much, because I urge people to be realistic, sound, and scientific. You two wanted to bully people into believing you. You don't teach you pontificate and insult. You teach people what not to do by your example. And I have documented such things here. And everyone will see these words unless you again retract them as you keep doing. Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop  :o Abusively ignorant and unstable.

Indeed,as i stated earlier in this thread.
But Rick was here years ago,doing the very same thing--big claim's ,and not one shred of evidence to back up those claim's.
https://overunity.com/15366/new-free-energy-conferences-in-hamburg-and-chicago/
Thanks to another member at OUR for the above thread link.
In that thread,you will hear Rick moaning about all the troll's (trolls are now those that ask for accurate power measurements from claimants of OU devices)in this forum,and how bad this forum is-->and yet,here he is again  ::)
Rick's !loving path! circuit is just John Bedini's SSG circuit--nothing more.
But it isn't even JB's circuit,as that very circuit was designed back in the early 70's.
Both are nothing more than an inductor being switched on and off,and the flyback sent to a load.
Neither John or Rick actually know what they are looking at,or how to understand the simplicity of what they are doing. Neither seem to understand that the energy of the flyback came from the source in the first place,but rather call it some bullshit like energy from the vacuum,or negative energy. Yes,this is the extent of there understanding.
It is funny to watch--
JB takes some one else's circuit,and calls it his own,and then Rick takes JB's circuit,and calls it his own  ::)
So just remember guy's-->trolls are those that seek truth, ask technical questions,and ask for data that can verifi the claimants claim of having an OU device.
Trolls are also those who replicate said OU device,but where the OU just dose not show up after careful analysis and power measurements-->you are now a troll and a disinformationist.
You have all witnessed in this thread that John Bedini's blood still flows strong through Rick's veins,and the very same tactics are still being used today by Rick as he used when in a business partnership with the Bedini camp-->a tigers stripe's never change. Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 07, 2019, 08:24:32 PM
Brad,
You have proven that yourself. You just don't want to admit this. You keep contradicting yourself. You railed on me on the OUR forum for violating policy while you were violating almost all the policies there. That is dishonest is it not? Then you were in the dust and ashes and talked about giving up. Then a little time later you reappear and start back up by saying I misrepresent Tesla. Did you justify that claim? I have quoted Tesla for my claims. I have demonstrated those claims. And I have shown people how to do that. I have quoted a leading authority on the subject so that my claims about Tesla could be justified historically, theoretically and practically from real Lab testing with established institutions. You feel justified to spout off anything without justification and with insult and hatred. Somehow you think that you are not required to prove your claims while you demand others to. That is self-contradiction and derangement. You need help. Go back to school and learn basic logic. It doesn't require brilliance to learn basic logic.

You said many things like this, but then you claim to know that my fan was not much more than 50% efficient. This claim is a lie because you have no reason for saying that. It is a dishonest practice that you have that ruins such forums. It is bar talk level. For all the demands about proof you are the worst example.

It isn't about how efficient the fan is either. I said, find a motor that is mid 90s efficient and then see these things. You are diverting from the point at hand. I called the owner of the company yesterday and he looked it up and said the fan I mentioned was 94% efficient. It is true that we need to properly evaluate any claim for ourselves and not go by what someone else says, especially someone like Brad who just speaks from ignorance. This is why it is about people showing themselves.

Brad has tried to oversimplify the debate in order argue in a circle while ignoring the practical dynamics in electrical engineering. The Loving Path loop is out of phase and also independent. It still all comes down to if more work can be done than what the input allows for under conventional theory. On the one hand they insist that there is no real work that can be done in a charging battery or load in that phase/loop, but on the other hand, at a different point, they will say it is just a buck boost circuit. So which is it? Complete contradiction. But you don't see people driving a motor with a buck boost do you? Well unless you call what I am doing that. The problem is that conventionally people only use one type of energy for their loads. They either use the magnetic to drive a motor or the electric to do the buck boost or transformer. But I do both. So if I run the motor still the same, but also have the so-called buck boost, then I have two equal forms of energy and the normal work times 2! And that is the dirty little secret that my Loving Paths teaching exposes.

Just because basic conventional engineering has single purpose uses for the part used, does not mean other types of work can't result from the same parts at the same time (or out of phase). The reason why we are used to single purpose parts is because that ensured under unity work results. For if it takes 100 watts to create such and such mechanical work, then those who control the world and sell us energy do not want us to have products, or be aware of the fact that such products can also produce additional work on top of that. Do I hear fan modification? Input went down, additional output while same mechanical output. The mechanical output is independent from the electrical output. They are not divided, but two different outputs. Symmetrical systems are made to be under unity and to ignore all the possibilities in the local environment. There are strictly monolithic circuits. Brad is perpetuating that mass deception that has been put upon the masses. This is only a partial truth. Under the circumstances you can ignore and hinder part of the possible work that can be done. You can go to work with one arm tied behind your back and say that is all that is possible under the circumstances. But if you say that is all that is actually possible then that is not honest. Now people don't know such things so it isn't dishonest to think that way. But you can cross that line when you deliberately tie your arm behind your back and say it can't do any work. Linear electrical systems are just like that when people insist upon them as universal.

Again, this is old news. You guys don't actually think otherwise, you just want a lot MORE free energy and without batteries. That is understandable. I get that. But attacking me is not going to expedite the learning process. Trying to beat things out of me doesn't work. I'm not going to be controlled by you. Besides, you have to start at the beginning if you want to eventually get to advanced levels. It's all the same loving paths from beginning to end. I actually find it hard to believe that some of you don't already know that because it is just old news.

Ok Mr a.king21
It is now up to you to show the efficiency of that fan motor,and prove your claim i am a liar.
First you must measure the actual air flow for a given amount of P/in to that fan motor.
Then you have to find out how much energy is within that flow of air-->what is the actual energy value of that flowing air the fan is moving.
Once you have done that,and you have the energy value of the flowing air,and the actual value of electrical energy the fan is consuming,then you can come back and show us all exactly how efficient that fan motor is.
This time,some bullshit efficiency claim by Rick will not cut it.
This time you are going to back up your claims against me with hard data and accurate measurements.
Knowing you and the way you work,you will not deliver any sort of accurate data or measurements,as it has become apparent that you are no different than Rick,where you just make false claims and accuse others of lying without having anything at all to back up those claims and accusations.
So,enough with the bullshit a.king--time to back up your claim's and accusations,although i really believe that any sort of accurate power/energy calculations from you is far above your pay grade.
It's all well and good to call me a liar,but lets see you back it up.
Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on August 07, 2019, 08:27:02 PM
Ok Mr a.king21
It is now up to you to show the efficiency of that fan motor,and prove your claim i am a liar.
First you must measure the actual air flow for a given amount of P/in to that fan motor.
Then you have to find out how much energy is within that flow of air-->what is the actual energy value of that flowing air the fan is moving.

Once you have done that,and you have the energy value of the flowing air,and the actual value of electrical energy the fan is consuming,then you can come back and show us all exactly how efficient that fan motor is.

This time,some bullshit efficiency claim by Rick will not cut it.
This time you are going to back up your claims against me with hard data and accurate measurements.

Knowing you and the way you work,you will not deliver any sort of accurate data or measurements,as it has become apparent that you are no different than Rick,where you just make false claims and accuse others of lying without having anything at all to back up those claims and accusations.

So,enough with the bullshit a.king--time to back up your claim's and accusations,although i really believe that any sort of accurate power/energy calculations from you is far above your pay grade.

It's all well and good to call me a liar,but lets see you back it up.


Brad
Ain't calling someone a liar a bit strong not to mention what looks like verbal humiliation, what's wrong with a more gentleman's approach like 'mistaken' come on lads lets cool it from back street street wise agresion, all this rudeness! many thanks the verbal moderator! :o you all need to observe the correct code of acceptable code of practice or you will be reported.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 07, 2019, 09:07:53 PM
 Just a note to the screaming fisherman in Seychelles
 Your plea has been heard


 Making no promises but ??
Perhaps put the post on your other topic?





Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 07, 2019, 11:10:54 PM
Void has posted a circuit which is not overunity. He demonstrates that a battery under load exhibits no visible voltage drop for a whole hour.  Which I suppose we all know.  (I mean I test my circuits 24/7 for weeks lol)
Nonetheless comments would be welcome.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI1ZS_2wYR8

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: baudirenergie on August 07, 2019, 11:38:05 PM
Void has posted a circuit which is not overunity. He demonstrates that a battery under load exhibits no visible voltage drop for a whole hour.  Which I suppose we all know.  (I mean I test my circuits 24/7 for weeks lol)
Nonetheless comments would be welcome.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI1ZS_2wYR8
Interesting, why are the cables go underneath and not in the box? :)
Will he proof overunity over the Internet? Will the "experts" now also ask for exact measurements, Scope Shots and calculations?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on August 08, 2019, 12:02:29 AM
This is a very important point he makes which reveals how these forums are usually worse than useless. What is the bases for any of you making conclusions from pictures, videos, or words presented by other people? There is no way to demonstrate that anyone else is really doing what they claim they are. Even video of people saying something cannot be trusted that the person is really the person you think it is as inexpensive 20 year old tech exists that mask so. . . . . . . .   
. . . .  . .
So it is true that there is no way for anyone to trust any claim from anyone on this forum. So what is the point of this forum? What use is it? I will continue this next post...
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 08, 2019, 12:25:02 AM
Seaad
 That is a very good starting point
 Trust absolutely no one... if that works for you .
 Prove everything yourself in front of you .


 How do you suggest it be changed ?


Of course what you describe would seem to be unique to this forum
As everywhere on the planet people exchange  and build and share
 And move forward .


 As a point of fact someone sends you something that they charge you for with plans and directions
I would imagine you would expect a refund if it didn’t work?


Here on the Internet word-of-mouth(internet texting) is the single biggest vetting process for consumers
 anything you buy of any value at all ,,,you absolutely rely on Feedback  from satisfied users
you investigate others experiences you look and search everywhere you possibly can for satisfied customers.  Or problems recalls issues etc. etc. etc.


To say ....in my opinion this model Doesn’t work here at this unique particular forum  and several others?
Well that would be amazingly disingenuous
After all there are no published plans ,no part numbers , yes I agree you have to buy the kit and thankfully we have members that have bought the kit and are willing to share the results (Stefan friend)
 so I suppose this is all hearsay or assumption until such a person steps forward with actual feedback from the actual product .
so yes I agree under the terms you describe absolutely 100% you cannot prove anything.


If you refer to your work ? is that what you were referring to?


Since you recently shared it ....the forum  has been an absolute mess
members can’t post
people are afraid to write


Please be brutally honest with exactly what you mean?


Chet






 


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Mannix on August 08, 2019, 01:20:16 AM
Got to love the humor ;D
I have worked closely with batteries all my life, and for the last 15 years with battery charging. I think I know a thing or two about surface charge. I probably have at least one conversation every day about related subjects.
You have to understand how to properly determine the actual capacity of a battery. I have 6 industrial chargers that do that with multiple resistive loads and programing. Once you know the battery's actual capacity then you can do full test runs and see this. This is why I can't do YouTube videos of proper tests that take days or weeks. But I have recorded very long videos.
We are not dealing with surface charge. You may be dealing with desulfating processes, or pushing up voltages on batteries that have no real capacity.
We can run different loads as well. But with batteries you need to run over time when you know what you are doing.

It is astounding that you, of all people would ever need any type of  battery charger.
I would suppose that they are all gathering dust with dried out caps by now .

C'mon Rick the guys here are asking for your best shot at proof even though you and I know that it will be picked apart.

A smart guy like yourself should be able to make a case with the details that conventionaly taught people understand.

That may well give problems for the less educated and vise versa.

So far all of your info is broken, incomplete, with some real but perhaps honest mistakes .

All we have here is a long debate where you win many irrelevant battles but fail in the war department.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 08, 2019, 03:29:28 AM
Interesting, why are the cables go underneath and not in the box? :)
Will he proof overunity over the Internet? Will the "experts" now also ask for exact measurements, Scope Shots and calculations?


I think there must be a language barrier here.  Void says his build is not overunity - but I agree that he could have posted a circuit diagram.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 08, 2019, 03:31:35 AM
Chet,
You have to take this in context. We are talking about proofs of demonstration. These need to be proven by ourselves. That's the whole point. These forums are merely about sharing information. People get too hyper about claims. They just need to relax. We live in a day of opinions so there is little grounds for trust anyway.
Feedback on products is a different matter than popularity vote for major world changing things like free energy where there is so much at stake.
You will have to go back and read what was shared and not assume what you write. There are published part numbers, directions, etc. There has been for 15 years. But that's OK to ignore and just repeat the same thing over and over to give a wrong impression.
Again, I choose to share what I did here for various reasons. You guys assume that I have shared here everything that I have shared publicly. Why? I have shared a lot more and very specifically elsewhere. But you guys judge me as if I haven't done that. This proves my point again and again. I have said many times what parts to use and what to do. But here people have mostly aggressively attacked and assumed the worst. They are desperately looking to disprove in any possible way good or bad.
So maybe you should take a little more time and not assume the worst again. You indicated you would act different...

Seaad
 That is a very good starting point
 Trust absolutely no one... if that works for you .
 Prove everything yourself in front of you .


 How do you suggest it be changed ?


Of course what you describe would seem to be unique to this forum
As everywhere on the planet people exchange  and build and share
 And move forward .


 As a point of fact someone sends you something that they charge you for with plans and directions
I would imagine you would expect a refund if it didn’t work?


Here on the Internet word-of-mouth(internet texting) is the single biggest vetting process for consumers
 anything you buy of any value at all ,,,you absolutely rely on Feedback  from satisfied users
you investigate others experiences you look and search everywhere you possibly can for satisfied customers.  Or problems recalls issues etc. etc. etc.


To say ....in my opinion this model Doesn’t work here at this unique particular forum  and several others?
Well that would be amazingly disingenuous
After all there are no published plans ,no part numbers , yes I agree you have to buy the kit and thankfully we have members that have bought the kit and are willing to share the results (Stefan friend)
 so I suppose this is all hearsay or assumption until such a person steps forward with actual feedback from the actual product .
so yes I agree under the terms you describe absolutely 100% you cannot prove anything.


If you refer to your work ? is that what you were referring to?


Since you recently shared it ....the forum  has been an absolute mess
members can’t post
people are afraid to write


Please be brutally honest with exactly what you mean?


Chet
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 08, 2019, 04:13:17 AM
What is wrong with having battery chargers. Strange to say.

Not sure what is gathering dust. There are many people who have used the industrial chargers 24/7 for 12 years now restoring thousands of batteries.

I'm not looking for recognition. I have shared some very important information here that allows everyone here to have all their energy needs taken care of. You just have to read what has been shared in much detail. If you don't want to read then that's your fault. There are many people reading this thread who do not write here, but share with me privately, and those are who I am sharing this for.

Yes it is a challenge to break up the foundations of prejudice and closemindedness. But I don't believe people fail to understand this. I have learned that people often say differently than what they really believe. You can see how when people avoid subjects that they do understand the truth. It isn't really about knowledge in many cases, but about suppressing the truth for various reasons. I have made many cases here but I get zero response from the attackers. I responded to everything, and so thoroughly that it irritates them. There is no more case to make as there is zero acknowledgement of anything, just ignoring critical points and twisting other points.

It is easy for you to say such words but they are merely empty words. If you have observed something then you need to quote it like everyone else does here. Your words are true in your case here: "So far all of your info is broken, incomplete, with some real but perhaps honest mistakes ." Do you see your contradiction here? And this sort of thing happens again and again. Just repeating empty words with zero content. No positive contribution about OU information. Just subtle attacks through assumptions.

No, you're wrong. I have won in many positive ways. You can't assume people's words are always a real reflection of what is going on inside. There are many people reading that are very happy with what I have shared and are now able to do a lot more. And even when the attackers say one thing it doesn't mean that my words will never benefit them in the future. I trust that at least some of them will benefit down the road. Perhaps a good number are really just trolls trying to get as much information as they can while pretending to not believe. This is a way to draw information out of people. Who can really know what people's motives are specifically here?

The debate was not what people were expecting. They were expecting me to try and prove something with a circuit. But at first I took people back to the foundation of their assumptions. They were really mistaken about thinking they could prove OU claims over the internet. Or disprove such claims in the same way. That is a huge mistake, and that really is settled even if people don't want to admit it.

The other major point was that OU or free energy is not self-running. That was hard for people to let go of. Some still cling to it. Again, I am not slighting people for wanting that and not being interested in anything less than that. That is fine. But it is wrong to call OU ONLY that. Self-running is OU but All OU is not self-running.

Further I challenged the pride of the experts who were not willing to back up their methodology and assumptions. I brought out the founders of electrical engineering, as well as the advanced levels today. I gave a basis for my statements, and I got zero response. This showed that the experts really were just arguing from a very basic (limited context) level of electrical understanding and experience while trying to give another impression. They were not willing to present their foundations because they just wanted to pick at and bully someone else. I am a foundationalist. I'm not going to waste my time bickering about the end result if there is no foundation.

So all of these are foundational points that I have stressed. You would think that people would want to build from the foundations up. But people just want to argue in a circle: I'm right because I'm right. But without a real foundation then what do your words even mean? Why is one model better than another? Also, I showed the self-contradictions of these models. People proved to themselves how their own words contradicted their other words. So there are many important things that I have proven here that are not OU claims. But just because you can't prove an OU claim here, doesn't mean we can't learn about claims and share useful OU information so that they can prove it to themselves. So I am satisfied with that.

It is astounding that you, of all people would ever need any type of  battery charger.
I would suppose that they are all gathering dust with dried out caps by now .

C'mon Rick the guys here are asking for your best shot at proof even though you and I know that it will be picked apart.

A smart guy like yourself should be able to make a case with the details that conventionaly taught people understand.

That may well give problems for the less educated and vise versa.

So far all of your info is broken, incomplete, with some real but perhaps honest mistakes .

All we have here is a long debate where you win many irrelevant battles but fail in the war department.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 08, 2019, 04:34:54 AM
This is just Void of relevance. Obviously he is trying to do the same sort of thing as T was asking me. But here the wires are off the view and he really doesn't tell us anything. Maybe he has a power supply attached? Maybe there is a lithium battery under the black box? Who knows?

Void has posted a circuit which is not overunity. He demonstrates that a battery under load exhibits no visible voltage drop for a whole hour.  Which I suppose we all know.  (I mean I test my circuits 24/7 for weeks lol)
Nonetheless comments would be welcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI1ZS_2wYR8
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 08, 2019, 04:35:02 AM

I think there must be a language barrier here.  Void says his build is not overunity - but I agree that he could have posted a circuit diagram.

Perhaps Rick could also post a circuit diagram for the fan setup.

And how are those efficiency measurements comming along for that fan--the one you accused me of lying about.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 08, 2019, 04:59:00 AM
Perhaps Rick could also post a circuit diagram for the fan setup.

And how are those efficiency measurements comming along for that fan--the one you accused me of lying about.


Brad
You've just proved my point.  You know nothing about the efficiency of the fan and neither do I.  However you said it was 50% efficient - which is something you could not have known.  Therefore you made it up. In my book - if you make something up it is a fabrication ie a lie.
It certainly is not scientific - that's for sure.
He has posted a circuit diagram. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=11s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=11s)
That's all anyone needs.


What I find hard to understand is why people do not just take the information freely given and test it out.
Instead their is a barrage of attacks for no reason.
You cannot apply EE theory to this tech.  You have to get into Steinmetz - which enables you to understand Tesla- and then later Barret .


You could start here of course - but I doubt if you can follow it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnSz_e7jvc&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 08, 2019, 04:59:32 AM
Yeah I have many videos before YouTube, on YouTube, and also not online.
I'm not going to bother posting links for all you want to do is attack me one way or the other. You guys are not in control of me here and I will post and/or make videos when I want and never for you. If I do a video about anything it will be for nice people who actually appreciate me for giving information. Your attitude is obvious Darren, you always assume the worst and like a troll you attempt to insult to get information. Obviously if a battery can be charged up then other loads can be run instead.


Obviously it can drive other loads aside from batteries, and it's also obvious why it won't be shown.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 08, 2019, 06:29:00 AM
As I wrote, I am not going to be forced to do anything. I will share what I will when I want and how I want to. You are only looking to accuse and you have no credibility.
I almost included that in the video, but I was trying to be mindful off all the complaints about how long the videos are. I'm not about to make thousands of short videos or people will just get lost in so many. It is not worth it for me to make one short video of that right now, or of the frequency generator being replaced by a coil. You can keep repeating this childish game while you ignore everything I have said and shown but it is obvious why you do that. Like I said, I won't give you the satisfaction of doing what you are trying to force me to do. You can do it yourself. That's all I do videos for. I don't need to show anything because I am not trying to prove anything. I don't need to show anyone how to hook up the wires to another load. You want me to try and prove something with a video. So you miss the point.

Again, why don't you do something constructive rather than just be a useless critic of everything? Always assuming the worst. Oh yeah, you once did something 13 years ago and now you know everything. "it's also obvious why" nothing positive from Darren will "be shown."

Obviously it can drive other loads aside from batteries, and it's also obvious why it won't be shown.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 08, 2019, 06:35:50 AM
You've just proved my point.  You know nothing about the efficiency of the fan and neither do I.  However you said it was 50% efficient - which is something you could not have known.  Therefore you made it up. In my book - if you make something up it is a fabrication ie a lie.
It certainly is not scientific - that's for sure.
He has posted a circuit diagram. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=11s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk&t=11s)
That's all anyone needs.


What I find hard to understand is why people do not just take the information freely given and test it out.
Instead their is a barrage of attacks for no reason.
You cannot apply EE theory to this tech.  You have to get into Steinmetz - which enables you to understand Tesla- and then later Barret .


You could start here of course - but I doubt if you can follow it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnSz_e7jvc&feature=youtu.be

My claim of 50% efficiency comes from years of experiance working with such fans and motors,where as your accusation of me lying comes from nothing but your own ignorance.

You-like Rick,have no idea as to how to go about measuring the actual efficiency of that fan,where as i could give you an accurate efficiency within 30 minutes of that fan.

So this means that neither you nor Rick has any idea at all as to the efficiency of Ricks fan system,as you don't even know how to measure the fans own efficiency in the first place.

Both yours and Ricks inabilities are starting to shine through,but that is something most of us knew right from the start.

Neither of you even understand what inductive kickback is.
You continue to give it fantasy names like energy from the vacuum,radiant energy,and Ricks best one is--but it energy out of phase with the supply energy. What crap is that?-->out of phase energy lol 3 phase power has 3 lots of energy out of phase with each other-->is this free energy ? Lol.

That is how stupid you two sound--it's  out of phase,so it's free energy.

You and Rick have both led your selves up the garden path.
You have been peddling this garbage for that long your actually starting to believe your own rubbish.

But it's all good.
It won't be long now before you two are exposed for the garbage you are peddling,as my fan is on it's way,and then we will get some accurate power measurements--something you and Rick are incabable of.

You say TK was rightfully moderated for strong language,but yet you feel it is ok to call me a liar without having to provide any evidence at all that i did lie.

The only two trolls in this thread are you and Rick.
You both come here making big claims of OU,and cannot or have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your claims.
Hell,you can't even measure the efficiency of a simple DC fan--nuff said right there.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 08, 2019, 06:39:13 AM
Why Brad, you already know what it is. Since you said it was around 50% then that MUST be the truth. Like I said, the owner said it was 94%. It really doesn't matter to me as I have used these fans for years and rotated the batteries back and forth. It wouldn't matter if it was 30% or 80% or 94%.
You always avoid the actual point at hand, that the input was reduced and there was added output. In this simple modification we have gain because the coil has a dual purpose which is suppressed by people like you and mainstream theory and practice. Instead of saying, that's cool Rick, you just attack.
If you can't follow instructions then I can't help you. I did a longer video before with the whole process. But you guys just insult me for showing a long video.

Perhaps Rick could also post a circuit diagram for the fan setup.
And how are those efficiency measurements comming along for that fan--the one you accused me of lying about.
Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 08, 2019, 06:54:54 AM
I'm sure Brad. Prove to us in video that you have such years of experience. Come on. I expect to see that in 5 minutes or you can't do it.  :o
Again, you are just embarrassing yourself. But you just want to distract from the point as I wrote.
All you do is repeat the same all statements over and over again. You never respond to a single point but just call it names. You are being childish Brad. You argue in a circle and set yourself up as the judge and authority. "You can't do this, You can't do that, because Brad said so."  ::)
Nice comparison to 3 phase. Wow!  :o Maybe you mean you were fazed!

My claim of 50% efficiency comes from years of experiance working with such fans and motors,where as your accusation of me lying comes from nothing but your own ignorance.

You-like Rick,have no idea as to how to go about measuring the actual efficiency of that fan,where as i could give you an accurate efficiency within 30 minutes of that fan.

So this means that neither you nor Rick has any idea at all as to the efficiency of Ricks fan system,as you don't even know how to measure the fans own efficiency in the first place.

Both yours and Ricks inabilities are starting to shine through,but that is something most of us knew right from the start.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 08, 2019, 07:03:04 AM
Again, why don't you do something constructive rather than just be a useless critic of everything?


I can show videos, tests, measurements, and schematics for days. However, I suspect that the blind enthusiasts will dismiss my results unless they are favorable to the cause.


I prefer to utilize my time in productive ways.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 08, 2019, 08:03:16 AM
And on that note, this will be my last post in this thread; I have those productive tasks to tend to, and I'm sure Stefan has his finger on the moderation trigger aimed my way anyway.


I wish you the best in all Rick, and I hope we can part with no animosity (there is none from me anyway).


Its been......well lets leave it at that.


Cheers.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 08, 2019, 08:10:12 AM
It's been real  ;) I don't let this get to me. It's always a learning experience. I wish you all the best and hope you find what you are looking for!  :)

And on that note, this will be my last post in this thread; I have those productive tasks to tend to, and I'm sure Stefan has his finger on the moderation trigger aimed my way anyway.
I wish you the best in all Rick, and I hope we can part with no animosity (there is none from me anyway).
Its been......well lets leave it at that.
Cheers.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Jeg on August 08, 2019, 09:49:59 AM
Hi Rick
Just a quick question.
While using a mosfet driver as for a primary switch is simple and clever idea, i realised that its output imbedance is high in comparison with other types of switches. Doesn't that degrade the purpose for which the driver is used? As for a reference tc4420 has about 1,5-2,5 Ohms output impedance depending on its power supply.

Thank you
Jeg
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 08, 2019, 11:57:58 AM
Why Brad, you already know what it is. Since you said it was around 50% then that MUST be the truth. Like I said, the owner said it was 94%. It really doesn't matter to me as I have used these fans for years and rotated the batteries back and forth. It wouldn't matter if it was 30% or 80% or 94%.
You always avoid the actual point at hand, that the input was reduced and there was added output. In this simple modification we have gain because the coil has a dual purpose which is suppressed by people like you and mainstream theory and practice. Instead of saying, that's cool Rick, you just attack.
If you can't follow instructions then I can't help you. I did a longer video before with the whole process. But you guys just insult me for showing a long video.

Perhaps you can share with us how you your self have calculated the correct efficiency of the motor,like any good experimenter would do when making claims of free energy.
I mean,i'm saying an efficiency of around 50% from years of experience,and the guy you bought them off says an efficiency of 94%. So how have you confirmed the claimed efficiency of 94% Rick ?--could you run us through your efficiency confirmation test procedure ?--iust so as we all know that you have confirmed the efficiency of the motors you claim give free energy.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 08, 2019, 11:59:01 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law)
kinetic to electric or electric to kinetic

vento= wind and ventilation/wind-ing

"extracting from the wind stream " ~ kinetic to electric

"intracting as wind stream"~ electric to kinetic
ventilator-/fan-/rotor- efficiency x motor efficiency =

                                                   average theoretical  < 50% rotor+ e-motor efficiency ( full load)

work efficiency without variable speed drive : C.O.P. : < 0,25
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 08, 2019, 12:04:17 PM
I'm sure Brad. Prove to us in video that you have such years of experience. Come on. I expect to see that in 5 minutes or you can't do it.  :o
Again, you are just embarrassing yourself. But you just want to distract from the point as I wrote.
All you do is repeat the same all statements over and over again. You never respond to a single point but just call it names. You are being childish Brad. You argue in a circle and set yourself up as the judge and authority. "You can't do this, You can't do that, because Brad said so."  ::)
Nice comparison to 3 phase. Wow!  :o Maybe you mean you were fazed!

Well first up,you only have to look at my youtube channel to see what i do,and the test equipment i have.

But i'll tell you what Rick,i'll just build a small one tonight,as i have a few of them brushless DC fans lying around. They are only the small cooling fans for computers,but you did state in your video that any brushless DC motor will work,and give us free energy.

At least from this you will be able to see how accurate testing is carried out,instead of your style of testing and measurements you try to make in your video's,where no output energy was measured at all other than a batteries voltage rising slowly,and where your input power shown by the display on your power supply was jumping all over the place. That is just pure junk,and shows nothing at all,but still you claim free energy--just like your friend JB did for many years.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 08, 2019, 12:41:37 PM
Why Brad, you already know what it is. Since you said it was around 50% then that MUST be the truth. Like I said, the owner said it was 94%. It really doesn't matter to me as I have used these fans for years and rotated the batteries back and forth. It wouldn't matter if it was 30% or 80% or 94%.
You always avoid the actual point at hand, that the input was reduced and there was added output. In this simple modification we have gain because the coil has a dual purpose which is suppressed by people like you and mainstream theory and practice. Instead of saying, that's cool Rick, you just attack.
If you can't follow instructions then I can't help you. I did a longer video before with the whole process. But you guys just insult me for showing a long video.
My dear Rick  a picture paints a thousand words or so they say so why does the camera point at you and not a close up of the object you have in focus, i'm asking not attacking.

Regards Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 08, 2019, 05:21:28 PM
My dear Rick  a picture paints a thousand words or so they say so why does the camera point at you and not a close up of the object you have in focus, i'm asking not attacking.

Regards Raymondo


Rick shows closeups in many of his videos:


1 hour 59 minutes in.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpoOWs8SfVo&t=3s
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 08, 2019, 05:44:41 PM
Well first up,you only have to look at my youtube channel to see what i do,and the test equipment i have.

But i'll tell you what Rick,i'll just build a small one tonight,as i have a few of them brushless DC fans lying around. They are only the small cooling fans for computers,but you did state in your video that any brushless DC motor will work,and give us free energy.

At least from this you will be able to see how accurate testing is carried out,instead of your style of testing and measurements you try to make in your video's,where no output energy was measured at all other than a batteries voltage rising slowly,and where your input power shown by the display on your power supply was jumping all over the place. That is just pure junk,and shows nothing at all,but still you claim free energy--just like your friend JB did for many years.


Brad
Hi Tin man have you got a build video you can post. regards
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 08, 2019, 06:02:59 PM
I don't know if this helps evaluation of the RICK but here is a closeup of one of the 3 watt  led bulbs. 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 08, 2019, 06:54:53 PM
Brad,

I don't show my testing equipment in my videos. My videos are just showing some basic things for everyone so that everyone can do this easily. This is not my industrial work but only basic hobbyist fun.
 
You keep assuming that I am trying to prove something with my videos. This is why you are so upset with me. You expect me to do what you want to do. I do my measurement for myself. I share information and people can do their own measurements.

Now I'm really surprised that you have these brushless DC fans as you have so much distain for them. I thought you would only be owning 98% efficient motors by the sounds of it.

Well, maybe you can make them more efficient now, and actually do some battery charging on top of getting the air flow. It's nice that I brought this to your attention. You're welcome!  ;)

Well first up,you only have to look at my youtube channel to see what i do,and the test equipment i have.

But i'll tell you what Rick,i'll just build a small one tonight,as i have a few of them brushless DC fans lying around. They are only the small cooling fans for computers,but you did state in your video that any brushless DC motor will work,and give us free energy.

At least from this you will be able to see how accurate testing is carried out,instead of your style of testing and measurements you try to make in your video's,where no output energy was measured at all other than a batteries voltage rising slowly,and where your input power shown by the display on your power supply was jumping all over the place. That is just pure junk,and shows nothing at all,but still you claim free energy--just like your friend JB did for many years.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 08, 2019, 07:56:25 PM
Brad,
I'm not doing any of this for you, nor will I do what you demand. While I do things for other people who are not so hostile I find you fairly predictable in your arrogant hostility.

The efficiency of the motor is not the point. You keep committing the ignoration elenchi fallacy and divert to something else that is really related to the subject. If we were focusing on efficiency here, or more importantly COP then I would be doing a different circuit than merely the diode modification. I would also use another motor. You are looking for me to be proving something else here. You fail to take the time to even read what I have written or listen to what I have said.

If the motor was 10% efficient, and the world used it that way, then if I make it more efficient while also resulting in battery charging (say 10% extra work on top) than that is a useful gain. I know that this is not what you want, but I don't care about what you want me to be doing here. We are not addressing the same thing. You are missing the point as always. You have committed yourself to attacking me about your own misunderstanding of what I am doing here. It doesn't matter what the efficiency of the fan is so long as the result has a gain over normal setup. This is just a tiny step in the right direction. The first step is for people to realize that things are not as good as they could be. Can you not agree with that? You would say we should be using more efficient motors. And I agree. You would say we should be using more efficient circuits. I agree. I have shown a simple way to make such widely used fans more efficient while allowing for a small electrical load in addition to that (while the motor has the same CFMs (with less input energy). We obviously disagree with the why and how of this and that is the point of debate. You have made the efficiency of the motor to be the debate because you refuse to consider what I have been saying.

Now I know that if I had presented a self-runner system here that it would be easier for you to see this. But I didn't actually make that video for this forum or to satisfy that desire. It was again mentioned here by someone else. But it still makes a point that needs to be considered: why is no one doing this when these motors have been around since the 70s? Well I am doing that, but always much better (I never use just a diode, and just show it here as an easy thing to do). The bigger point other than making things more useful or efficient, is the fact that I am showing a many-body asymmetrical circuit that uses a floating ground. This is just a tool to begin considering these things. It would like a practical application to what Walter Lewin was showing merely with the reverse volt meter in his lectures about Kirchhoff's loop rule being a special case of Faraday. Can you understand that even if you don't agree with me or Lewin?

I didn't by that from the owner of that company, I bought it from Digikey. Maybe you've heard of that US company. It has the "world's largest selection of electronic components." Maybe that isn't good enough for you. IDK. Again, I decided to call the company and the owner actually called me back and looked up their testing for that fan and they determined it was 94%. It doesn't matter to me if it is less than that or more as I can make the fan run continuously with the other circuits anyway. But it is a nice off-the-shelf practical fan that I have used for many years now.

Now you will divert from the subject and make a big deal about all your skills and tools to try and save face here. You have made many blunders so far and now you are desperate to prove your value on this forum. You recently said you were thinking about giving up because of your many blunders in similar discussions. So now you are desperate to put me down as a tool to show how superior you are to me. That is really sad to see. I have several friends who have watched you from the first days and have actually liked your videos. They are watching you do this and are really disappointed with your hostile attitudes and closemindedness. We all agree that you are a highly reactionary person. You hate Aaron and Bedini so much that you automatically reject anything they mentioned. And that is just immature. Now you are doing the same against me. You stated yesterday that you are on a mission to destroy. That doesn't sound like science but revenge for being embarrassed. But that was your own doing. You made this into a war from the start. You admittedly were prejudiced against me because of former associations with Bedini. Then you apologized for doing that. Then you eventually just went with the tide of attackers and said a whole bunch of foolish things against me again. Then I responded again in great length and you were in the dust and ashes and wrote that you were thinking about giving up all of this. Then you flip flopped again and started saying that I was misrepresenting Tesla when I was actually quoting him. Then you started all over again and said yesterday that I am just Bedini just because I recognized that he said some truth about some matters. I mean really, bedini believed transistors were switching devices, so I guess because you believe that that means you must be Bedini and should be rejected, etc.  ::) You have no dialogue skills and are just a reactionary person. You want to control me but that's not going to happen. I am not reactionary but always benefit from any discussion, even if you heap abuse on me. I can learn from you as well Brad, even if it is what not to do. A mature person can realize where warning parties agree with each other. An unreasonable person just assumes that the other party is wrong in everything (which is actually impossible). You are right in many things. All I'm saying is that what you have experience and believe is limited. The same is true for me. I know very little. Electrodynamics is still in relative infancy because of the prejudices and corporate/institutional greed. But I do know that there is a vast difference between mainstream limited electromagnetism theory and practice and advanced electromagnetism that is used in special systems (like Tesla used) not well known to the general public. Some of that is within many products all around the world for many years. But most of the time these kinds of processes are in anything but energy generation applications.

Perhaps you can share with us how you your self have calculated the correct efficiency of the motor,like any good experimenter would do when making claims of free energy.
I mean,i'm saying an efficiency of around 50% from years of experience,and the guy you bought them off says an efficiency of 94%. So how have you confirmed the claimed efficiency of 94% Rick ?--could you run us through your efficiency confirmation test procedure ?--iust so as we all know that you have confirmed the efficiency of the motors you claim give free energy.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 09, 2019, 12:14:59 PM
Brad,
I'm not doing any of this for you, nor will I do what you demand. While I do things for other people who are not so hostile I find you fairly predictable in your arrogant hostility.

The efficiency of the motor is not the point. You keep committing the ignoration elenchi fallacy and divert to something else that is really related to the subject. If we were focusing on efficiency here, or more importantly COP then I would be doing a different circuit than merely the diode modification. I would also use another motor. You are looking for me to be proving something else here. You fail to take the time to even read what I have written or listen to what I have said.

If the motor was 10% efficient, and the world used it that way, then if I make it more efficient while also resulting in battery charging (say 10% extra work on top) than that is a useful gain. I know that this is not what you want, but I don't care about what you want me to be doing here. We are not addressing the same thing. You are missing the point as always. You have committed yourself to attacking me about your own misunderstanding of what I am doing here. It doesn't matter what the efficiency of the fan is so long as the result has a gain over normal setup. This is just a tiny step in the right direction. The first step is for people to realize that things are not as good as they could be. Can you not agree with that? You would say we should be using more efficient motors. And I agree. You would say we should be using more efficient circuits. I agree. I have shown a simple way to make such widely used fans more efficient while allowing for a small electrical load in addition to that (while the motor has the same CFMs (with less input energy). We obviously disagree with the why and how of this and that is the point of debate. You have made the efficiency of the motor to be the debate because you refuse to consider what I have been saying.

Now I know that if I had presented a self-runner system here that it would be easier for you to see this. But I didn't actually make that video for this forum or to satisfy that desire. It was again mentioned here by someone else. But it still makes a point that needs to be considered: why is no one doing this when these motors have been around since the 70s? Well I am doing that, but always much better (I never use just a diode, and just show it here as an easy thing to do). The bigger point other than making things more useful or efficient, is the fact that I am showing a many-body asymmetrical circuit that uses a floating ground. This is just a tool to begin considering these things. It would like a practical application to what Walter Lewin was showing merely with the reverse volt meter in his lectures about Kirchhoff's loop rule being a special case of Faraday. Can you understand that even if you don't agree with me or Lewin?

I didn't by that from the owner of that company, I bought it from Digikey. Maybe you've heard of that US company. It has the "world's largest selection of electronic components." Maybe that isn't good enough for you. IDK. Again, I decided to call the company and the owner actually called me back and looked up their testing for that fan and they determined it was 94%. It doesn't matter to me if it is less than that or more as I can make the fan run continuously with the other circuits anyway. But it is a nice off-the-shelf practical fan that I have used for many years now.

Now you will divert from the subject and make a big deal about all your skills and tools to try and save face here. You have made many blunders so far and now you are desperate to prove your value on this forum. You recently said you were thinking about giving up because of your many blunders in similar discussions. So now you are desperate to put me down as a tool to show how superior you are to me. That is really sad to see. I have several friends who have watched you from the first days and have actually liked your videos. They are watching you do this and are really disappointed with your hostile attitudes and closemindedness. We all agree that you are a highly reactionary person. You hate Aaron and Bedini so much that you automatically reject anything they mentioned. And that is just immature. Now you are doing the same against me. You stated yesterday that you are on a mission to destroy. That doesn't sound like science but revenge for being embarrassed. But that was your own doing. You made this into a war from the start. You admittedly were prejudiced against me because of former associations with Bedini. Then you apologized for doing that. Then you eventually just went with the tide of attackers and said a whole bunch of foolish things against me again. Then I responded again in great length and you were in the dust and ashes and wrote that you were thinking about giving up all of this. Then you flip flopped again and started saying that I was misrepresenting Tesla when I was actually quoting him. Then you started all over again and said yesterday that I am just Bedini just because I recognized that he said some truth about some matters. I mean really, bedini believed transistors were switching devices, so I guess because you believe that that means you must be Bedini and should be rejected, etc.  ::) You have no dialogue skills and are just a reactionary person. You want to control me but that's not going to happen. I am not reactionary but always benefit from any discussion, even if you heap abuse on me. I can learn from you as well Brad, even if it is what not to do. A mature person can realize where warning parties agree with each other. An unreasonable person just assumes that the other party is wrong in everything (which is actually impossible). You are right in many things. All I'm saying is that what you have experience and believe is limited. The same is true for me. I know very little. Electrodynamics is still in relative infancy because of the prejudices and corporate/institutional greed. But I do know that there is a vast difference between mainstream limited electromagnetism theory and practice and advanced electromagnetism that is used in special systems (like Tesla used) not well known to the general public. Some of that is within many products all around the world for many years. But most of the time these kinds of processes are in anything but energy generation applications.

I have to ask Rick,are you also a comedian ? ,as you really have some whacked out idea's.
What i  mean is--you are good for a laugh  :D

But anyway,lets clarify for those here.
You make a video,where within the first couple of minutes you claim to be showing a free energy !fan!. Your idea of free energy is being able to draw a very small amount of energy from the fan without it effecting the speed at which the fan is rotating,or the amount of work the fan is doing,all while the P/in remains the same--right?.

This is why i was asking if you were also a comedian  ::)

You may think your smart with your word's,but there is no substance to anything you say at all,so your fancy talk is just a waste of your time. The reason i dislike bedeni,Aaron,and now you,is because you try and sell stuff based on lies. You claim to have free energy machine's,and Overunity machine's,but you don't --you lie,just as bedini and Aaron do,all in the name of making a dollar from those less aware of your agenda.

You lie in your video's,as you have not once shown a free energy device or an OU device.
You say in your video on the fan that it is free energy,but you know as well as anyone that the !so called! free energy comes from the source the fan is running from. You think because you have increased the efficiency of that fan motor(which we have no way of knowing if you have or have not,as your measurements are just plain rubbish),that the small amount of energy being drawn from it to charge a 12v battery is free  ::). Well the bad news for you is-->it is not free,it was supplied to the fan motor by the source-->your power supply. On top of that,you have no idea as to how efficient your fan is,you have no accurate P/in measurements,and there was nothing hooked up to the charging battery other than a volt meter-->you have to be kidding,right?.

This is how people like you,bedini,and Aaron work.
You continually claim free energy and OU,but you avoid at all costs  actually presenting any sort of accurate data to back up your claim's-->you never have,and you never will-->because you can't.

So while you continue to waffle on about me doing this,and doing that,well atleast i am not a fraud,and i never try and make money from the gullible by selling lies. How do you sleep at night Rick?,knowing full well that what you are doing is just plain wrong--and you say your a man of faith lol.

So Rick,you are either aware of what you are doing,or you really have no clue as to how very simple electronic electromagnetic devices work,nor do you seem to understand the difference between free energy and a small increase in efficiency,due to the slight reduction in core eddy current losses.

You are simply not fooling anyone here Rick,as there are those here that are way above your pay grade when it comes to simple things like all your devices.

I posted a link to a thread you had going here back in 2015,and you did exactly the same thing you are doing now.
You took on the likes of MarkE and MileHigh,and got your ass handed to you by those that know your snake oil salesman pitches. And here you are again,having another go at peddling your garbage-->trying to get the sales up i guess  ::)

Well your simply not going to do any better here now than you did in 2015,as the free energy community is well aware of how people like you operate-->you simply cannot pull the wool over there eyes anymore Rick--those days are over. So now you will have to find some other method of increasing sale's for your !good for nothing! product's.

Sleep well Rick  ;)


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 09, 2019, 01:17:16 PM


 I see Rick answered the question I asked to SEAAD

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 09, 2019, 01:46:09 PM
Well it pointless arguing. What I want to see is a build of the device of the motor that really works.
By saying 'works' i mean that in good faith either from any of you guru's here as I want start getting into a build.

Oh and Please no joke junk stuff stuff of youtube  ;D ;D it's not nice,

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 09, 2019, 01:46:27 PM
Sorry thought it was a continuation in the thread, Re   Brad and magnet motor saga brad says works, and so does Ricks but it pointless arguing can you both add pointers to the ones that do please.

What I want to see is a build of the device of the motor that really works would be nice
By saying 'works' i mean that in good faith either from any of you guru's here as I want start getting into a build. Before the lights go out if possible

Oh and Please no joke junk stuff stuff of youtube with the old radio active magnets thanks ;D ;D it's not nice as they are toxic for those guys who don't know,

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 09, 2019, 02:03:11 PM
 Ray
exactly what do you want to see
A free fan hack ??
A motor doing what..?..running a light bulb or  putting a small charge into a battery while using less power ?
Would you like to see a free hack to turn your oscilloscope from a $500  scope into $1000 scope on the Internet ...would you like to be taught that for free on the internet ?


Would you like to be taught how to use your PC as an oscilloscope ...spectrum analyzer on and on for free on the internet
 or would you like to hack your car and get much more gas mileage
 is that the kind of free ....energy we’re talking about ?



 If you don’t want to see YouTube hacks ?? please be more specific ...do you want free energy or do you want over unity ...seems the distinction has now been made .
Waiting for Stefan’s  friend....

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 09, 2019, 02:57:49 PM
Well it pointless arguing. What I want to see is a build of the device of the motor that really works.
By saying 'works' i mean that in good faith either from any of you guru's here as I want start getting into a build.

Oh and Please no joke junk stuff stuff of youtube  ;D ;D it's not nice,

Raymondo

There are no self running motors that have been proven to work.
If you want free energy,buy some solar panels.

In saying that,i am still in pursuit of the impossible.
One of two things will happen--
1- i will succeed
2-i will die trying

But first we need a clean path to follow,and the cleanup starts by getting rid of fraudsters like Rick,Aaron,and the likes. They contaminate actual research with there snake oil sale's pitches,and give good people bad names--like they are doing to the works of Tesla.
Nothing they do is related to Tesla's work,they just use his name to try and make there garbage sound good--which it is not.

People like Rick take other people's work,and call it there own.
If you look at Rick's !loving path! circuit,and his fan setup,it is identical to Imhotep's fan charger from over 12 years ago,and the circuit is the same as bedini used in his SSG.
None of these snake oil salesmen have anything of there own,they just take-rename,and sell others work-->and under false pretenses.

The best thing you could do is build the simple SSG and go from there.
Make slight modifications,and see which one improves the efficiency.
This is where i started,and went on from there.

Here is a replication of one of my circuits(the twin BEMF circuit i designed many years ago)
Lets see Rick show one of his motors charging both the run and charge battery at the same time.
So many things buried in the past that need to be revisited.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HwUuPQn2W8&list=FLsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w&index=78&t=0s


Brad


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 09, 2019, 03:40:36 PM
Brad,
If I am funny by pointing out how silly you are then I accept the compliment.  ::)
Nice complete evasion of everything I wrote! Your response is entirely that it is "fancy talk." Impressive Brad. You just repeat your denials which is what I expected. You don't realize that your responses are always just fallacies. Or maybe you do.

What is "whacked out" in showing how you can make billions of fans more efficient and produce more output? Your rejection of the most obvious thing here shows how prejudiced you are. You can't even grant one point because you are so filled with hatred.

Now remember, this fan demo is in the greater context of saying that it is the least beneficial circuit option--it is just a basic sample of what is possible.

A very small gain is nevertheless a gain Brad.

This is about the funniest sentence on this forum so far:
"You may think your smart with your word's,but there is no substance to anything you say at all,so your fancy talk is just a waste of your time."
Wow! You really took the time to properly spell, use correct grammar and type out that one! And it is actually your post here that has "no substance to anything you say at all". Incredible. You are only proving my points here Brad.

Brad, I sell things that people beg for. I don't go around advertising. My customers refer others to me. I often spend many hours talking to people for free. I have free websites offering free material since the beginning of the internet. I have put up books and thousands of pages of historical information for free. And before that I gave away the information to people in print and on disks. I have paid for these libraries and websites myself. But people have asked for specific products and so I offered them. I didn't come here with products to push. I have shared raw information that does not require products from me. I have made many things open source. I don't sell things based upon lies, but based upon what Tesla taught, and what the top electrodynamicists of history have taught. You mock that as "fancy words" because you are limited to very crude high school level electronics. I can't help that you try and oversimplify everything. I'm trying to make it simple enough.

I'm not making money from you Brad. I am selling to people who ask. But I am showing everyone how to do this for free. I am paying with my own time and free websites for people to have this free information. I have a few items for sale as I have to live just like you have to make a living. If people didn't want this then I wouldn't be doing this. Obviously it is important enough that you are obsessed with it and are desperate to silence me. Just look at yourself for a minute. Go back to your previous apologies and consider what you have already said after you put your foot in your mouth foolishly. You have some serious problems Brad. It's obvious to everyone that you really don't believe these words you are saying. If it was so obvious that I was wrong then there would not be close to 150,000 views on this thread that have mostly happened in the last 2 months. You wouldn't be spending so much time on this if it wasn't important. Yet you never address any of the important points that I make, you just sweep everything away in one big red herring fallacy.

You just don't get the basic point. If you get more out than what is thought possible, then that is practically free gain. Pretty simple Brad. You assume the gain is from the primary input. Just because that input made the motor action, and is a trigger for the secondary action in charging a battery, doesn't mean that energy came from that primary input. That is the point in debate here. You just argued in a circle saying it is. The energy from the input is already accounted for in the motor action and the regular circuit losses. My point is that when we add the loving path loop then more energy appears that is useful under the circumstances. You say that it was already there. In some sense yes, but it wasn't manifesting because it was suppressed in a way. It was deliberately shorted out. We can all agree that what I have done in this is an improvement. But you will never want to admit that. And that is my main point.

The deeper point is that this is just a tiny taste of Tesla's shuttle circuit engineering that Barrett pointed out in 1991. For your information, he applied that very engineering in his very important patent:

Oscillator-shuttle-circuit (OSC) networks for conditioning energy in higher-order symmetry algebraic topological forms and RF phase conjugation
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5493691A/

"The present invention is in the spirit of Tesla's outlook on electromagnetics. Tesla's approach to electrical engineering addresses and accents primarily the inductive-reactive part of electromagnetic field-matter interactions, rather than the resistive part. His approach is more comparable with the physics of nonlinear optics and many-body systems than with that of the single-body systems of current electrical engineering. The Tesla approach is fundamentally a nonlinear many-body approach and may be contrasted with the approach of mainstream electrical engineering, both linear and nonlinear. The nonlinear aspects of mainstream electrical engineering are based on feedback in the resistive field, whereas the nonlinearity in Tesla's approach is based on coupled inductive oscillators using to-and-fro shuttling of energy to and from isolated capacitative stores through non-circuit elements attached to conventional circuits. These network arrangements, which are called oscillator-shuttle-circuit networks herein, or OSC networks (Barrett, 1991), result in adiabatic nonlinearities in complete oscillator-shuttle-circuit systems."

This was is along the same lines as another he filed at the same time as the groundbreaking ultrawideband radar patent:
Active signalling systems
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5486833A/en

I have shown who sponsored him in his latest book on Resonance Radar last week. These are top level advanced processes Brad. You are acting like and are at a high school level. Grow up and admit and consider the existing technology like this. Again, I am just trying to do the most basic thing to bring this to your attention. If I don't start at this level then how are you going to appreciate the very complicated systems? Again, you are upset not because of the reasons you give, but because you want more output than this simple fan demo. And that is understandable. But if you can't appreciate a little gain then you will not be open to more. And you will not get how this all works. So go read the groundwork patent from Barrett and tell me that he is some fool that misrepresented Tesla and tell me why the big companies and DoD thinks otherwise. When you humble yourself maybe you may benefit from trying to understand the principles here. Then you will get what I have been doing for 15 years now. Let me know when you sincerely do that and I'll be here to help you.

I have to ask Rick,are you also a comedian ? ,as you really have some whacked out idea's.
What i  mean is--you are good for a laugh  :D
But anyway,lets clarify for those here.
You make a video,where within the first couple of minutes you claim to be showing a free energy !fan!. Your idea of free energy is being able to draw a very small amount of energy from the fan without it effecting the speed at which the fan is rotating,or the amount of work the fan is doing,all while the P/in remains the same--right?.
This is why i was asking if you were also a comedian  ::)
You may think your smart with your word's,but there is no substance to anything you say at all,so your fancy talk is just a waste of your time. The reason i dislike bedeni,Aaron,and now you,is because you try and sell stuff based on lies. You claim to have free energy machine's,and Overunity machine's,but you don't --you lie,just as bedini and Aaron do,all in the name of making a dollar from those less aware of your agenda.
You lie in your video's,as you have not once shown a free energy device or an OU device.
You say in your video on the fan that it is free energy,but you know as well as anyone that the !so called! free energy comes from the source the fan is running from. You think because you have increased the efficiency of that fan motor(which we have no way of knowing if you have or have not,as your measurements are just plain rubbish),that the small amount of energy being drawn from it to charge a 12v battery is free  ::). Well the bad news for you is-->it is not free,it was supplied to the fan motor by the source-->your power supply. On top of that,you have no idea as to how efficient your fan is,you have no accurate P/in measurements,and there was nothing hooked up to the charging battery other than a volt meter-->you have to be kidding,right?.
[Bla, Bla, Bla.]
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 09, 2019, 04:05:11 PM
Brad,
If I am funny by pointing out how silly you are then I accept the compliment.  ::)
Nice complete evasion of everything I wrote! Your response is entirely that it is "fancy talk." Impressive Brad. You just repeat your denials which is what I expected. You don't realize that your responses are always just fallacies. Or maybe you do.

What is "whacked out" in showing how you can make billions of fans more efficient and produce more output? Your rejection of the most obvious thing here shows how prejudiced you are. You can't even grant one point because you are so filled with hatred.

Now remember, this fan demo is in the greater context of saying that it is the least beneficial circuit option--it is just a basic sample of what is possible.

A very small gain is nevertheless a gain Brad.

This is about the funniest sentence on this forum so far:
"You may think your smart with your word's,but there is no substance to anything you say at all,so your fancy talk is just a waste of your time."
Wow! You really took the time to properly spell, use correct grammar and type out that one! And it is actually your post here that has "no substance to anything you say at all". Incredible. You are only proving my points here Brad.

Brad, I sell things that people beg for. I don't go around advertising. My customers refer others to me. I often spend many hours talking to people for free. I have free websites offering free material since the beginning of the internet. I have put up books and thousands of pages of historical information for free. And before that I gave away the information to people in print and on disks. I have paid for these libraries and websites myself. But people have asked for specific products and so I offered them. I didn't come here with products to push. I have shared raw information that does not require products from me. I have made many things open source. I don't sell things based upon lies, but based upon what Tesla taught, and what the top electrodynamicists of history have taught. You mock that as "fancy words" because you are limited to very crude high school level electronics. I can't help that you try and oversimplify everything. I'm trying to make it simple enough.

I'm not making money from you Brad. I am selling to people who ask. But I am showing everyone how to do this for free. I am paying with my own time and free websites for people to have this free information. I have a few items for sale as I have to live just like you have to make a living. If people didn't want this then I wouldn't be doing this. Obviously it is important enough that you are obsessed with it and are desperate to silence me. Just look at yourself for a minute. Go back to your previous apologies and consider what you have already said after you put your foot in your mouth foolishly. You have some serious problems Brad. It's obvious to everyone that you really don't believe these words you are saying. If it was so obvious that I was wrong then there would not be close to 150,000 views on this thread that have mostly happened in the last 2 months. You wouldn't be spending so much time on this if it wasn't important. Yet you never address any of the important points that I make, you just sweep everything away in one big red herring fallacy.

You just don't get the basic point. If you get more out than what is thought possible, then that is practically free gain. Pretty simple Brad. You assume the gain is from the primary input. Just because that input made the motor action, and is a trigger for the secondary action in charging a battery, doesn't mean that energy came from that primary input. That is the point in debate here. You just argued in a circle saying it is. The energy from the input is already accounted for in the motor action and the regular circuit losses. My point is that when we add the loving path loop then more energy appears that is useful under the circumstances. You say that it was already there. In some sense yes, but it wasn't manifesting because it was suppressed in a way. It was deliberately shorted out. We can all agree that what I have done in this is an improvement. But you will never want to admit that. And that is my main point.

The deeper point is that this is just a tiny taste of Tesla's shuttle circuit engineering that Barrett pointed out in 1991. For your information, he applied that very engineering in his very important patent:

Oscillator-shuttle-circuit (OSC) networks for conditioning energy in higher-order symmetry algebraic topological forms and RF phase conjugation
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5493691A/

"The present invention is in the spirit of Tesla's outlook on electromagnetics. Tesla's approach to electrical engineering addresses and accents primarily the inductive-reactive part of electromagnetic field-matter interactions, rather than the resistive part. His approach is more comparable with the physics of nonlinear optics and many-body systems than with that of the single-body systems of current electrical engineering. The Tesla approach is fundamentally a nonlinear many-body approach and may be contrasted with the approach of mainstream electrical engineering, both linear and nonlinear. The nonlinear aspects of mainstream electrical engineering are based on feedback in the resistive field, whereas the nonlinearity in Tesla's approach is based on coupled inductive oscillators using to-and-fro shuttling of energy to and from isolated capacitative stores through non-circuit elements attached to conventional circuits. These network arrangements, which are called oscillator-shuttle-circuit networks herein, or OSC networks (Barrett, 1991), result in adiabatic nonlinearities in complete oscillator-shuttle-circuit systems."

This was is along the same lines as another he filed at the same time as the groundbreaking ultrawideband radar patent:
Active signalling systems
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5486833A/en

I have shown who sponsored him in his latest book on Resonance Radar last week. These are top level advanced processes Brad. You are acting like and are at a high school level. Grow up and admit and consider the existing technology like this. Again, I am just trying to do the most basic thing to bring this to your attention. If I don't start at this level then how are you going to appreciate the very complicated systems? Again, you are upset not because of the reasons you give, but because you want more output than this simple fan demo. And that is understandable. But if you can't appreciate a little gain then you will not be open to more. And you will not get how this all works. So go read the groundwork patent from Barrett and tell me that he is some fool that misrepresented Tesla and tell me why the big companies and DoD thinks otherwise. When you humble yourself maybe you may benefit from trying to understand the principles here. Then you will get what I have been doing for 15 years now. Let me know when you sincerely do that and I'll be here to help you.

It is good to see that you finally admit that you are only making a slight improvement in efficiency,and not making free energy as you have been claiming to.

What you now must understand is that even though you might make a slight gain in efficiency,you are still running at a loss. These are the things you should be telling people,not that they can make free energy.

But in saying that,you would be better off just buying a top end fan,and saving even more energy,due to there higher efficiency.

But the record is straight--you admit to only making a slight improvement in efficiency,and not making free energy.

Now,how about your claims of having overunity machines ?
Are you going to set the record straight there as well-->it would be the right thing to do.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 09, 2019, 04:44:43 PM
Brad,
How do you know this? Proven to who? You really believe that you know everything and are the judge of everything? You are only working at high school level electronics.

The problem with you Brad is you are confused. On the one hand you are certain of the conventional theory and insist upon under unity dynamics but then you hope that you can experience the impossible. So then why are you so aggressive? If you were not so full of hatred then maybe you could actually learn something.

Again, prove to us that you understand Tesla at all. You don't obviously. It is easy to say something, but you back up nothing. You are just a troll that hides behind your ignorance.

The fan came from me 14 years ago. Bedini did the tape motor drive model and I improved upon it and made the fan. Others copied that. We did a video together in 2006 after I had shown those fans to over 100,000 people the years before.

The circuit is not entirely the same as the SSG so you don't know again.

It is true that Bedini didn't invent the SSG type of circuits. I realize that now and I have exposed him for claiming to be more than what he was. That is old news Brad. Everyone builds upon the work of others. I give credit to everyone I know to have contributed.

So you attack the SSG type circuit and claims and now you refer people to it.  :o Wow!

Then you show a video just because you are mentioned in it. You assume you figured that end part the first time. But we did all these options years before. Some of that goes back to the 80s as well. But here you are taking credit for something that others did before you. Maybe you figured it out by yourself, but it just goes to show that if you attack someone in your ignorance you may find out that you are the guilty one for your own violation.

But why post a video like that and not attack the guy like you do me? You have some very preliminary readings from a guy with a very crude motor (which is fine as I have made many like that myself early on). You have a double standard Brad. If I quote all the attacks you hurled against me for showing similar things how do you account for that?

Now tell us if this guy really had that be a self-runner in the long run. That is not the proper way to make that system self-run. I talk to thousands of these kinds of guys over the years. I get all the details and try and help them out. We all learn from each other.

I have already shown videos where the run battery remains at the same place for an hour while running the motor and powering significant loads. Here is one that demonstrates exactly what I was mentioning here in 2015 that you attack me about:

https://youtu.be/6he58A5xTIQ

There are other videos as well. I have shown these motors running at many of my meetings over two days where the batteries stay charged. Same batteries I have used for years (with old date stamps), so they are not ruined either.

There is a proper and improper way of self-charging. The first point of my company is to ensure battery longevity. So any method of self-charging that damages or degrades the batteries (such as in solar controllers) is avoided. For what is the point if you damage the battery and make it some consumable. That was one of the main reasons I rejected Bedini because he was a battery killer. The Tesla switch can be over unity self-running, but it will kill the batteries. The only way to do that is with high frequency or using capacitors like Benitez 100 years ago.
So you have to look at the batteries over more than just a few minutes, cycles, or months to properly judge the results. It takes years to determine the effects on batteries. That is what I do. But batteries are not necessary, and neither are motors. But they are easy to see these things with, and everyone has them.

There are no self running motors that have been proven to work.
If you want free energy,buy some solar panels.
In saying that,i am still in pursuit of the impossible.
One of two things will happen--
1- i will succeed
2-i will die trying
But first we need a clean path to follow,and the cleanup starts by getting rid of fraudsters like Rick,Aaron,and the likes. They contaminate actual research with there snake oil sale's pitches,and give good people bad names--like they are doing to the works of Tesla.
Nothing they do is related to Tesla's work,they just use his name to try and make there garbage sound good--which it is not.
People like Rick take other people's work,and call it there own.
If you look at Rick's !loving path! circuit,and his fan setup,it is identical to Imhotep's fan charger from over 12 years ago,and the circuit is the same as bedini used in his SSG.
None of these snake oil salesmen have anything of there own,they just take-rename,and sell others work-->and under false pretenses.
The best thing you could do is build the simple SSG and go from there.
Make slight modifications,and see which one improves the efficiency.
This is where i started,and went on from there.
Here is a replication of one of my circuits(the twin BEMF circuit i designed many years ago)
Lets see Rick show one of his motors charging both the run and charge battery at the same time.
So many things buried in the past that need to be revisited.
Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 09, 2019, 05:02:34 PM
Tinman:  Rick's fan device which he introduced is just the first process of many.
Later on there is the second and third stage process where reactive loops are introduced.
Eventually the device works with the input battery not discharging.
Let Rick explain the process as it unfolds and then criticize the final process if you still think it does not work.
I am surprised you are not asking questions about the next 2 processes.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 09, 2019, 05:49:37 PM
 author=rickfriedrich link=topic=17491.msg538250#msg538250 date=1565361883]


I like how you say that bedini's chargers kill batteries,and yet you use the very same inductive kickback to charge your batteries lol.

Quote
The problem with you Brad is you are confused. On the one hand you are certain of the conventional theory and insist upon under unity dynamics but then you hope that you can experience the impossible. So then why are you so aggressive? If you were not so full of hatred then maybe you could actually learn something.


No,you are twisting things around-as you do.
I am referring to those like you--that is what i appose.
Those that make big claims of free energy and overunity,but never deliver or provide any proof what so ever. That crap about not being able to prove anything over the internet is garbage,and you use it only as an escape goat,so as you have a distorted reason not to provide any proof.
Funny thing is,most of us here have been doing the very thing you say cannot be done,and we prove one way or another whether a device works as claimed. So you are wrong again,and such devices can be proven over the internet. The reason you say your devices cannot be proven over the internet is because you have nothing to present that is OU.

Then there are these fantasy terms you lot use,like energy from the vacuum,radiant energy,and your best one yet-->out of phase energy lol.

Quote
Again, prove to us that you understand Tesla at all. You don't obviously. It is easy to say something, but you back up nothing. You are just a troll that hides behind your ignorance.

Rick
That is not me you are describing there-->that is you down to a T.
You are the one that continue's to make claim's but fails to deliver.
So where is your backup to your extraordinary claim's ?.

Quote
There is a proper and improper way of self-charging.

There is no self charging.
Charge only comes from a source,and that source cannot be the charge itself.
You are of course free to show us all a self charging battery,but we all know that will not happen.

Quote
I have already shown videos where the run battery remains at the same place for an hour while running the motor and powering significant loads. Here is one that demonstrates exactly what I was mentioning here in 2015 that you attack me about:

https://youtu.be/6he58A5xTIQ

More garbage.
I can show a battery running a resistive load,and the voltage will climb.
This just go's to show how little you know about batteries ,and what chemical reactions can take place within them when under load.
And as far as a negative resistance go's-->bollocks.More snake oil salesman bullshit.
If you had a negative resistance,then you have an energy source,not a sink.

Quote
There are other videos as well. I have shown these motors running at many of my meetings over two days where the batteries stay charged. Same batteries I have used for years (with old date stamps), so they are not ruined either.

Oh we have all seen the large 1000 amp hour battery banks running 50 watt motors before.
And we have all seen you show a voltage across those batteries.
But not once have we ever seen you do any accurate battery analysis after the run's.
Show me one video where you do a specific gravity test using a hydrometer on those batteries before and after running your motors for days.

Quote
The circuit is not entirely the same as the SSG so you don't know again.

The circuit works the very same way,only you use a hall switch,and bedini uses a transistor to make and break the current flow to the driving coils.
Both send the same inductive kickback to a second battery--there the same.

Quote
So you attack the SSG type circuit and claims and now you refer people to it.  :o Wow!

Once again,you twist things around.
I attack those that make false claims about the SSG circuit,in order to generate a cash flow-->like you do.

Quote
How do you know this? Proven to who? You really believe that you know everything and are the judge of everything? You are only working at high school level electronics.

Perhaps you'd like to put your skills up against mine ?
How about we see who can build the most efficient electric motor ?
Then we get a 3rd party to verify our claimed efficiency  ;)

Quote
Then you show a video just because you are mentioned in it. You assume you figured that end part the first time. But we did all these options years before. Some of that goes back to the 80s as well. But here you are taking credit for something that others did before you. Maybe you figured it out by yourself, but it just goes to show that if you attack someone in your ignorance you may find out that you are the guilty one for your own violation.

I have seen all the variations of pulse motor circuit's,and there is not one like my twin BEMF circuit.
If you are so sure there is,post a schematic,and lets all see.

Quote
But why post a video like that and not attack the guy like you do me? You have some very preliminary readings from a guy with a very crude motor (which is fine as I have made many like that myself early on). You have a double standard Brad. If I quote all the attacks you hurled against me for showing similar things how do you account for that?


Now you see Rick,this is where you fall flat on your face.
Why would i attack a guy for replicating my circuit when it was me that asked him to replicate it for verification?. You see Rick,when i make a claim,i get some one else to replicate my work,and then get verification from them that it works as i say it dose. You on the other hand do not want anyone to replicate your work,as you know the result will be negative--such as Itsu's was.
He done an excellent job at replicating your system,but the wheels fell of your wagon when his accurate measurements came back negative. And i can tell you now,Itsu runs rings around you when it comes to electronics and accurate measurements.

Quote
Now tell us if this guy really had that be a self-runner in the long run. That is not the proper way to make that system self-run. I talk to thousands of these kinds of guys over the years. I get all the details and try and help them out. We all learn from each other.

The truth is Rick,you have never helped anyone achieve a self running device,as you do not even have one your self. You are lost in the bedini battery land of mistakes and misunderstandings.
But you know that-dont you Rick,and you do not want to let the cat out of the bag. ;)

Quote
The first point of my company is to ensure battery longevity. So any method of self-charging that damages or degrades the batteries (such as in solar controllers) is avoided.

I would trust a good solar charge controller over your battery toasters any day.

Quote
For what is the point if you damage the battery and make it some consumable. That was one of the main reasons I rejected Bedini because he was a battery killer. The Tesla switch can be over unity self-running, but it will kill the batteries. The only way to do that is with high frequency or using capacitors like Benitez 100 years ago.

There is no OU tesla battery switch.
Speaking of knowing Tesla,please post Tesla's !battery switch!

Quote
So you have to look at the batteries over more than just a few minutes, cycles, or months to properly judge the results. It takes years to determine the effects on batteries. That is what I do. But batteries are not necessary, and neither are motors. But they are easy to see these things with, and everyone has them.

Lol--oh,years now lol.
You lot do give your self a larger leeway each year.
Please tell everyone here what exactly you !think! you are doing to the batteries?.

And one last thing.
We are all dying to know as to how this !out of phase! energy is any different to !in phase! energy.
You love using the term,and you say i know very little,so what is this !out of phase! energy?


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 09, 2019, 05:53:28 PM
Tinman:  Rick's fan device which he introduced is just the first process of many.
Later on there is the second and third stage process where reactive loops are introduced.
Eventually the device works with the input battery not discharging.
Let Rick explain the process as it unfolds and then criticize the final process if you still think it does not work.
I am surprised you are not asking questions about the next 2 processes.

Because it is the same quackery as the first process.

I am still awaiting those efficiency measurements from you,so as you can back up your claim that i am a liar.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 09, 2019, 06:20:35 PM
Bad Brad, you are just a liar. I did not say that. The efficiency gain is one thing. But the battery charging is free energy. You intentionally twist what I wrote.

You continually divert from the debate and you just play these word games and diversions because you are trying to save face by attacking me with fallacies.

You don't understand what is meant by loss, efficiency and COP from what you say.

It is good to see that you finally admit that you are only making a slight improvement in efficiency,and not making free energy as you have been claiming to.
What you now must understand is that even though you might make a slight gain in efficiency,you are still running at a loss. These are the things you should be telling people,not that they can make free energy.
But in saying that,you would be better off just buying a top end fan,and saving even more energy,due to there higher efficiency.
But the record is straight--you admit to only making a slight improvement in efficiency,and not making free energy.
Now,how about your claims of having overunity machines ?
Are you going to set the record straight there as well-->it would be the right thing to do.
Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 09, 2019, 06:51:55 PM
Brad,
Again, you just deflect from the points I have made and make up new fallacies and lies. The very first line shows this. That is why you are doing the lol, because you are laughing in the hope that your lie will mislead your friends here. Again, you just always assume the worst. And you are wrong.

I have provided proof. You are a fool to think you can prove OU claims over the internet and you know that. You really think that people should believe a meter reading? You will disbelieve any meter reading you don't want to believe. Everything I show you you automatically disbelieve. You just want the ability to fake any disproof claims because that is why you are here. So I'll say again:

POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

Now I do NOT mean that people who know each other in the real world and are in regular exchange should not trust each others claims in exchanging pictures and videos and words. While that is fine, it is still limited as people do make mistakes. But this forum and OUR is not set up that way. It is only an information exchange. This is also a highly controversial matter which affects many trillions of dollars. Naturally there is a lot at stake to suppress this information. And that is why we see so many trolls like you doing just that. You may not be paid, I have no idea. But your actions are highly suspect. As I pointed out you attack me for the very things the guy was doing in the video you just mentioned. This shows you have other reasons for attacking me. Maybe you got the visit Brad. Was that it??? I mean, people don't do what you are doing unless something drastic forces them to. If this was so silly then you wouldn't have put all this time into it. I mean, here you are telling people that there is something with the SSG after all. But all your lack of reasoning prior was in complete contradiction to that. There is therefore something else going on here. Maybe more than your hatred towards me. It is becoming more and more desperate and irrational. And therefore you are only proving my points more and more.

author=rickfriedrich link=topic=17491.msg538250#msg538250 date=1565361883]
I like how you say that bedini's chargers kill batteries,and yet you use the very same inductive kickback to charge your batteries lol.
No,you are twisting things around-as you do.
I am referring to those like you--that is what i appose.
Those that make big claims of free energy and overunity,but never deliver or provide any proof what so ever. That crap about not being able to prove anything over the internet is garbage,and you use it only as an escape goat,so as you have a distorted reason not to provide any proof.
Funny thing is,most of us here have been doing the very thing you say cannot be done,and we prove one way or another whether a device works as claimed. So you are wrong again,and such devices can be proven over the internet. The reason you say your devices cannot be proven over the internet is because you have nothing to present that is OU.
Bla, Bla, Bla.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 09, 2019, 08:26:51 PM
Then you are pushing "quackery" yourself. For you write:

"The best thing you could do is build the simple SSG and go from there.
Make slight modifications,and see which one improves the efficiency.
This is where i started,and went on from there."

The SSG is a species of the Loving Paths first stage process genus. And the other stages are just more advanced stages of this.

This was one of the only positive things you have posted here. But that contradicts everything else you are writing. Just makes it seem like there are two opposite people using your account or that something else is going on. You admit here that there is something to the SSG. And yet you attack me for saying that.  :o



Because it is the same quackery as the first process.
I am still awaiting those efficiency measurements from you,so as you can back up your claim that i am a liar.
Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 09, 2019, 11:03:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhd8Ye4gcVk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhd8Ye4gcVk)






However,  I have always thought that there were system losses on the earth side.  So it looks like maybe a 60% gain to me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhd8Ye4gcVk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhd8Ye4gcVk)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 10, 2019, 01:30:49 AM

Aprox
3watt input charges it’s own batteries runs external load

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0sjqoshznU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0sjqoshznU)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 10, 2019, 02:39:58 AM
Then you are pushing "quackery" yourself. For you write:

"The best thing you could do is build the simple SSG and go from there.
Make slight modifications,and see which one improves the efficiency.
This is where i started,and went on from there."

The SSG is a species of the Loving Paths first stage process genus. And the other stages are just more advanced stages of this.

This was one of the only positive things you have posted here. But that contradicts everything else you are writing. Just makes it seem like there are two opposite people using your account or that something else is going on. You admit here that there is something to the SSG. And yet you attack me for saying that.  :o

Only you are confused by what i write,while the rest here understand that the SSG is a good learnig tool,but not a free energy device like you and bedini claime it to be.

Your latest video is the funniest yet,and i enjoy watching you fumble your way through them. But watching that video,and looking at your schematic for it,clearly shows just how little you know about your own devices. Your schematic is incomplete,and i bet you cannot complete it as it should be.
You are at pre-shool level as far as understanding current paths.

It is no wonder you see !free! energy everywhere.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 10, 2019, 03:13:52 AM
The monopole SSG is for asymmetric engineering. It depends on large battery banks or being a trigger to power many loads with additional reactive loops. It appears you never really understood it. But why would you recommend it as a learning tool here which is a thread about OU? You did that while showing a video that claimed to self-charge. Then when I pointed out your contradiction you change that and say it is not a free energy device. You just keep flip flopping all the time. What good learning can you do if that is not a free energy device at all? Your post is misleading people, just as you try to mislead people about me. You deliberately refrain from sharing what you believe about free energy processes. While it appeared that you were promoting this as an OU until I pointed this out, everything else you say is an attempt to disprove OU. Why not make some positive contribution here?

Thanks for the compliment. 'I love you more.' lol You remind me of when I was a kid with my brother and we were always wanting the get the last word before we went to sleep.

Wow! Again, you are desperate or having too many beers or something. Obviously the diagrams are merely representative. They are for a very small space to represent the idea as simple as possible. If you are referring to the AC circle that portion was exactly as found in similar textbook images which were not pre-school. Come on, it was high school! You should know that, because that is the level you are representing. They don't start electronics in pre-school  ;)

FREE ENERGY IS EVERYWHERE! It's in the sunshine, wind, waves, radiation from the cosmos, and can be collected from any disequilibrium system. You live in a dark reality Brad, and ignore the gifts all around you.

Only you are confused by what i write,while the rest here understand that the SSG is a good learnig tool,but not a free energy device like you and bedini claime it to be.

Your latest video is the funniest yet,and i enjoy watching you fumble your way through them. But watching that video,and looking at your schematic for it,clearly shows just how little you know about your own devices. Your schematic is incomplete,and i bet you cannot complete it as it should be.
You are at pre-shool level as far as understanding current paths.

It is no wonder you see !free! energy everywhere.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 10, 2019, 01:17:43 PM
I THINK YOU COULD BE WRONG THERE OZI..
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 10, 2019, 01:22:21 PM
THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF FREE ENERGY IS EFFICIENCY AND ONE
NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE ENERGY IS COMING FROM..THE EXTRA
ENERGY IS COMING FROM THE DORMANT NIBS,,MAGNETS ARE A PORTAL
OF ETHER..A MAGNET IS SOLID ETHER RESONANT MAGNIFIER. PLEASE
DO NOT SHOOT THE FISHERMAN MESSENGER.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 10, 2019, 01:26:50 PM
I WILL BET YOU A PACK OF 40 SWAN TINNIES IF YOU COULD PROVE ME WRONG,,
SAND GROPER.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 10, 2019, 01:51:41 PM
I WILL BET YOU A PACK OF 40 SWAN TINNIES IF YOU COULD PROVE ME WRONG,,
SAND GROPER.

Thats easy seychelles.
Just provide us with a self running Adams motor  ;)


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 10, 2019, 02:48:56 PM
   

 

 



Quote
The monopole SSG is for asymmetric engineering.

So what are the two half's that are not the same that makes it asymmetric ?

Quote
It depends on large battery banks

Of course it dose  ::).
Care to explain why ?

Quote
or being a trigger to power many loads with additional reactive loops.

Oh yes,you have to have them additional reactive loops  ;D
And don't forget the large volume of clip lead's--they always bring the OU in  ;D

Quote
It appears you never really understood it.

Oh i understand it well.
It's a money maker alright  ;)

Quote
But why would you recommend it as a learning tool here

Because it is easy to build,and cheap as well.
And also people will learn the truth when they build it. That being,it is not a free energy machine as you and the bedini camp claim. So that is why i tell people to build one,as it is easy to build,and exposes the fraud you present.

Quote
which is a thread about OU?

There is no OU in this thread,only some clown living in fairy land.

Quote
You did that while showing a video that claimed to self-charge.

You see Rick,that is how little you know about me and what i have done.
That replication was done by a member of my old forum,and it was to show others that were in Bedini lala land that batteries can play tricks,and there is no OU SSG pulse motor,but mere battery effect. This is something you know very little about,and why you continually keep fooling your self.
Perhaps you could show us a video where both batteries charge at the same time?. I know,you do not have the time  ::). But you see,you wouldn't be able to do it anyway,as that was my circuit that was showing that effect,and you have no idea what it is. Your SSG won't cut the mustard this time.

Quote
Then when I pointed out your contradiction you change that and say it is not a free energy device.

And it is not a free energy device--but it would fool you.
It is a battery trickery device-->you know,the trickery you fall for all the time.

Quote
What good learning can you do if that is not a free energy device at all?

Well you learn not to fall for the snake oil salesman's trick's   ;),as you know what to look for when they claim !free energy!

Quote
   Your post is misleading people, just as you try to mislead people about me.

My post's are accurate and true,while yours are nothing but lies.
I will retract that statement if you can show us all one of your many OU devices self running.

Quote
You deliberately refrain from sharing what you believe about free energy processes.

Ok,fair enough.
Step 1-find a source of high speed massless particle's.
Step 2-Make a semiconductor sandwich with an insulator in between.
Step 3--and this is the tricky one-->each slice of the semiconductor sandwich needs to be doped with a material,so as one half of the sandwich has a positive charge,and the other has a negative charge. This is done so as we now have an electric field between our semiconductor sandwich.
For the top layer i would use something like phosphorous,so as we have our excess electron layer.
For the bottom layer i would use something like Boron,which will give that layer fewer electrons.
Step 4 -Once that is done,then all you need to do is place it in the path of those high speed massless particle's,and a current will flow through any circuit attached to this semiconductor sandwich  :D

 
Quote
While it appeared that you were promoting this as an OU until I pointed this out, everything else you say is an attempt to disprove OU. Why not make some positive contribution here?


Oh dear  ::)
The very reason i showed that video was to show you the trickery you and the bedini brigade use to sell your !OU! product's--that are not OU.
This is why you only ever use big lead acid batteries,so as you can fool the gullible.
What you will never do is show one of your !claimed! self runners running from large capacitor's,as you cannot get the effect i showed using caps.
So that video was to expose your !!self running-self charging!! fraud.

Quote
Thanks for the compliment. 'I love you more.' lol You remind me of when I was a kid with my brother and we were always wanting the get the last word before we went to sleep.

You have issue's.

Quote
Wow! Again, you are desperate or having too many beers or something.

Here is some news for you cupcake--i don't drink beer,or any alcohol for that matter.
And the only thing i am desperate about,is stopping people like you claiming bogus free energy and OU devices.

 
Quote
Obviously the diagrams are merely representative. They are for a very small space to represent the idea as simple as possible. If you are referring to the AC circle that portion was exactly as found in similar textbook images which were not pre-school. Come on, it was high school! You should know that, because that is the level you are representing. They don't start electronics in pre-school  ;)

No,i'm talking about your part of the circuit,that is missing half the circuit.
This is another of your disinformation tricks you play. You leave out half of the circuit so as people think you have something,where in fact,if you put the rest of the circuit in there,people would know you have nothing.

Quote
FREE ENERGY IS EVERYWHERE! It's in the sunshine, wind, waves, radiation from the cosmos, and can be collected from any disequilibrium system. You live in a dark reality Brad, and ignore the gifts all around you.

And there you go  ;D,you just shot yourself in the foot  :)
Yes,free energy can be had from the sun,wind,and waves ETC,
!!!BUT!! your fan dose not give free energy as such(or any kind for that matter),as it requires an energy input,which in your video was the power supply.
So all the energy source's you just listed as free energy dose not require man made energy to be supplied to deliver free power/energy.
Your fan motor that you claim gives free energy needs to be supplied with man made power source,and so it is not a free energy device by your very definition you just posted-->big fail Rick LMAO.

Slowly but surely !!with your help Rick!! we are exposing your bogus claim's about free energy.
And you say i am not very smart lol.

Now Rick,we can make one simple modification to your free energy fan motor setup to make it an actual free energy device-->Remove your power supply,and see step's 1 to 4 above--or you could just go and buy a solar panel,which would be easier and cheaper than making one  ;D

You have a great day Rick,and we'll see you soon no doubt,so as we can debunk another of your claim's-->with your help of course  ;).


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on August 10, 2019, 03:03:55 PM
Aprox
3watt input charges it’s own batteries runs external load

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0sjqoshznU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0sjqoshznU)


Sorry Ramset , but what is the purpose of you post this link ??? Can you explain please ?  what is the meaning? I'm very impressed with that video lol
Are you introducing something we don't know or something new?   Or are you doing what TK usually does Spamming the thread with their videos asking :
IS THIS OU ?
 
OHHH i forget TK is moderated ....  upps !

Self feedback systems is something real . not something new .   ""input charges it’s own batteries runs external load"" ?????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u81edIeqIY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_eja4gmpcY 


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 10, 2019, 03:27:40 PM
An interesting exchange.

Re the modified computer cooling fan (no extra magnets added) here  :o 8)
I cant help but think of Imhotep's video or that Hawaiian kids (whose name escapes me at the momento) bunch of video's on the very same circuit where an energy collecting rechargeable battery is used to keep it going and if the fan is stopped the 4 watt LED lamp dies.
so whats that if not FE perhaps Self running looped or OU or what? i suppose he could add a supper farad cap and a starter handle or is the addition of the PSU just not on ?

PS no offence intended to either parties intended.

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 10, 2019, 03:36:20 PM
Nelson
 I suppose trying to understand
Since no sharing of actual circuits is being done here
 resorting to trying to understand...


I also try to understand the world I live in !
walking around are people for 15 years they could change the world ...according to Rick !
Why absolutely not one of them has come forward ever ..thousands of B-du-no / Rick customers....all the years I’ve been associated with OU not one has come forward.... anywhere.


15 years ?? I cannot imagine this ...it is beyond my frame of reference .


Sorry if I posted that and it upset you ,  this conversation that I’m reading here ...15 years the world ,our home... all of our homes.. to say it makes me sick to my stomach to think that for 15 years there are people that could fix this and they make money or they don’t share ...to say it makes me nauseous would be an understatement .


Sorry if the tinsels little movie upset you Nelson,I would feel much better about all of this if it was a lie


This  was the problem I had with the other forum.. that B_edi-no used.
How heartless and callous and indifferent to life ..


They also claimed they were trying to help ...help what?..help who?


 For the first time I just looked at the website of the man posting here ...$30 worth of parts and pieces for thousands of dollars


Sorry if I upset you Nelson
I hope you fellas sleep well at night, with your secrets  and Rick with his bank account .


  Such evil I cannot comprehend ?
End of story


I’m truly hoping Stefan  changes all of this with his friends information
For many years this is what Stephen would do and others here ..trying to crack the codes
open source things other people were hiding
Things that would save lives And change our planet


 In The back of my mind ...this is exactly what Stephen is doing with this claim .
Open source....
Or expose !!


Time (short time) will tell ??





Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 10, 2019, 03:38:44 PM



Self feedback systems is something real . not something new .   ""input charges it’s own batteries runs external load"" ?????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_eja4gmpcY

Well,a lot better than any of Rick's video's.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 10, 2019, 04:21:14 PM
Nelson
 I suppose trying to understand
Since no sharing of actual circuits is being done here
 resorting to trying to understand...


I also try to understand the world I live in !
walking around are people for 15 years they could change the world ...according to Rick !
Why absolutely not one of them has come forward ever ...all the years I’ve been associated with OU not one has come forward.... anywhere.


15 years ?? I cannot imagine this it is beyond my frame of reference .


Sorry if I posted that and it upset you ,  this conversation that I’m reading here ...15 years the world ,our home all of our homes.. to say it makes me sick to my stomach to think that for 15 years there are people that could fix this and they make money or they don’t share ...to say it makes me nauseous would be an understatement .


Sorry if the tinsels little movie upset you Nelson,I would feel much better about all of this if it was a lie


This  was the problem I had with the other forum.. that B_edi-no used.
How heartless and callous and indifferent to life ..


They also claimed they were trying to help ...help what?help who?


 For the first time I just looked at the website of the man posting here $30 worth of parts and pieces for thousands of dollars


Sorry if I upset you Nelson
I hope you fellas sleep well at night, with your secrets  and Rick with his bank account


  Such evil I cannot comprehend
End of story

Rick claims to have over 50 OU device's,but 15 of them are all that suit's his need's.

Im mean come on.
If Rick had just one OU device,do you really think he would be here wasting his time?--
or have a website where he tries to rip people off with all these phoney self running devices and part's.

He will of course have that 1 !get out of jail! free card on there for sure-->let's see if we can find it  ;)

Some of the garbage posted on Rick's website
Quote: Over the last twelve years we have offered a wide range of experimental and educational kits that have been used by the hobbyist wishing to power their home
Truth--no one has ever powered there home with one of Rick's kit's.
Ricks own home is still hooked to the grid  ::)

Quote: Students all over the country were also using these kits to win science fairs as they confounded their teachers and thrilled their peers while going beyond the limits of their teaching.
Truth-it was 1 girl,and with the help of her father. That is how the SSG got it's name-->the Simple School Girl circuit.

Quote:Customers have been invited to learn the basics of this technology through the DVDs, books, and email forums where volunteers have helped thousands of people all over the world replicate these devices.
Truth-not one single person achieved a self runner as promised in the book's and video's sold.

Quote:Output of these systems depended on the Size, Voltage, and Condition of the batteries used on the charging side.
Truth-you will never have the right batteries,and this is what they will say when your self runner dose not self run.

Quote: We have seen people get 50% recovery to many times more  recovery depending on these three facts (combined with tuning it right). We could never promise any results because of these variables.
And there is the !get out of jail! free card-->we could never promise any results due to these variables  ::).
I can assure you,you will never have the correct !variables!

Quote:All these systems use an unique process that creates a reversing process in the batteries themselves, where the charging batteries are usually constantly connected in series to the primary powering bank where it is conventionally understood that such primary battery bank could not charge the secondary batteries. This further amazes the observer when the secondary battery banks could be 10 times the voltage of the primary banks.
More garbage. There is nothing unique about inductive kickback charging,and as the inductive voltage spike has a much higher voltage value than that of the supply voltage,there is nothing amazing about being able to recharge say a 60 volt battery bank from a 12 volt supply battery.

Quote:We displayed the Renaissance rider Lawnmower, the Renaissance Porsche, and the Renaissance Boat
I found the boat--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p8TH1tDvzk

Na,but really--
Oh look,a fuel tank on the free energy boat  :D
And a standard DC motor  ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nli7T0Tnjs

And here is the !free energy! lawnmower-->with a shit load of batteries lol
How fast is this thing  ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL00le5NoCQ

Couldn't find a video of the porch driving,but found this one.
Note video description-->record breaking Porsche  :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqGCJjfBaEk&t=4s

Wonder what record it broke?
Probably slowest car on the road,although it looks like an ordinary electric motor.

Anyway,enjoy.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on August 10, 2019, 04:39:26 PM
Nelson
 I suppose trying to understand
Since no sharing of actual circuits is being done here
 resorting to trying to understand...


I also try to understand the world I live in !
walking around are people for 15 years they could change the world ...according to Rick !
Why absolutely not one of them has come forward ever ...all the years I’ve been associated with OU not one has come forward.... anywhere.


15 years ?? I cannot imagine this it is beyond my frame of reference .


Sorry if I posted that and it upset you ,  this conversation that I’m reading here ...15 years the world ,our home all of our homes.. to say it makes me sick to my stomach to think that for 15 years there are people that could fix this and they make money or they don’t share ...to say it makes me nauseous would be an understatement .


Sorry if the tinsels little movie upset you Nelson,I would feel much better about all of this if it was a lie


This  was the problem I had with the other forum.. that B_edi-no used.
How heartless and callous and indifferent to life ..


They also claimed they were trying to help ...help what?help who?


 For the first time I just looked at the website of the man posting here $30 worth of parts and pieces for thousands of dollars


Sorry if I upset you Nelson
I hope you fellas sleep well at night, with your secrets  and Rick with his bank account


  Such evil I cannot comprehend
End of story

Hi Ramset , i just ask you the purpose of that video nothing more . seems that you are a little bit down, but it was certainly not my question that made you that way.
You must find another person to regret your problems, because i'm not the right person to carry your personal  laments.
What turns my stomach around is seeing someone worried, and accusing the RF of making money on their site by selling kits and worried about their account . That is a bad thing Ramset not nice.
It seems to me that implicitly it displeases you why ? Is it something I have to say or feel responsible for?  I could understand RF, hardware is not free , and he does not live on air , need make money to survive or not ?
And Yes i sleep well at night.   you don't ? if not, you need find peace in your heart and cease to serve the conveniences of the usual group of people, who feel reserved to evaluate all situations in this forum, and although it could do so, they cannot do so without causing people to be left  this forum due to the usual verbal bullying.
Do you already take time out of your day to think about it?
Definitely yes. So why you don't make something about that ?
What Stephen did , it should have done a long time ago.
it was absurd what was going on, someone had to get their hands on what was happening, and that person was Stefan, because seems not exist moderation persons on the forum. some time ago i need send a msg to Stefan because a lunatic threatened someone else to shoot him with a riffle .  :( ... This type of things is something i call Radical people, and that is dangerous if not controlled . 
Ramset i don't have secrets , what you call secrets is nothing then a NDA   , but even that you could ask to your trusted judge specialist Tinsel their opinion about my work ,but you already know their opinion  lol  . So... no Secrets to reveal.
If I reveal something good , :) Can you find a way to get me a 4-channel oscilloscope as some guys received? :) ... the usual guys  ?????



all the best


Nelson Rocha













Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 10, 2019, 05:23:07 PM
 Nelson
 Yes things keep me up at night ...maybe that’s my problem not yours ?
One thing that doesn’t keep me up at night is putting my head on the pillow
when I have something which could save someone’s life.


  There are people doing things  on the planet that keep me up at night and make me worry for my children and grandchildren
 
 Recently  in America... people do things I cannot comprehend ?
 And here in America Rick does something else I absolutely cannot comprehend .


 I cannot imagine what that looks like to people that really need this technology ?


And here it plays like a game ?


 And you have no problem with any of this ?
Rick makes a business last 15 years ...it’s all just business to you ?..it’s all good ?..is that what you’re saying ?
I am very confused by what you’re actually saying?


 Also the excuse
 I can’t believe the things you just wrote ...other people stop this ...?other people needed moderation that’s why you didn’t share ?
that’s why Rick isn’t sharing ?


 Sorry language barrier must be confusing me ..
Here we’re not  exchanging baking recipes  and knitting Secrets ..this is just going in circles
 Read the mission statement Stefan wrote .



















Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 10, 2019, 05:37:25 PM
Nelson
here  the membership has purchased (together through donations) oscilloscopes and equipment
here there are  people in the membership who donate equipment to people who experiment


It is only open source ...and only to people who open source their work
So yes absolutely you can take that to the bank if you’re going to open source and you need equipment
 just as in the past it will happen again.


There is something very strange in this conversation and I don’t know if it’s language barrier or something hidden
it needs to be spoken
brutal honesty is the only way forward



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on August 10, 2019, 05:47:12 PM
Nelson
 Yes things keep me up at night ...maybe that’s my problem not yours ?
One thing that doesn’t keep me up at night is putting my head on the pillow
when I have something which could save someone’s life.


  There are people doing things  on the planet that keep me up at night and make me worry for my children and grandchildren
 
 Recently  in America... people do things I cannot comprehend ?
 And here in America Rick does something else I absolutely cannot comprehend .


 I cannot imagine what that looks like to people that really need this technology ?


And here it plays like a game ?


 And you have no problem with any of this ?
Rick makes a business last 15 years ...it’s all just business to you ?..it’s all good ?..is that what you’re saying ?
I am very confused by what you’re actually saying?


 Also the excuse
 I can’t believe the things you just wrote ...other people stop this ...?other people needed moderation that’s why you didn’t share ?
that’s why Rick isn’t sharing ?


 Sorry language barrier must be confusing me ..
Here we’re not  exchanging baking recipes  and knitting Secrets ..this is just going in circles
 Read the mission statement Stefan wrote .

Ramset, beyond the language barrier,we share different ideas and opinions and it seems to me that you are manipulating the words but maybe it will surely just be a misunderstanding  of my mind .
But we won't have much more to discuss either, will we?

Wish all the best


Nelson Rocha
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 10, 2019, 06:20:12 PM

Nelson I actually do believe there’s a misunderstanding here
 I read too many of your posts that I felt I agreed with


 What I’m about to write has nothing to do with you
It’s more about a forum that this mindset has come from


 Here the man that Rick shares his work from , who’s work it actually is ?
I have no idea
 This claim predates the Internet .
 
When I was a boy seeking secrets .... the x-ray vision to look through walls ...or to throw your voice
All things that came in the mail .
waiting to be opened by excited fingers


 These things were toys ..scams ..whatever ...no harm ?


But here something drastic has changed ...here it has apparently become all right to watch people starve..to watch animals go extinct ...to watch a planet be destroyed  or damaged , drought ...or consequences of toxic chemicals to try and sustain crop yeilds ? (Reefs disappearing oceans estuaries
Starving for oxygen


Huge deforestation ...undrinkable water.. so many things that could be fixed with Ricks technology !
( indoor stackable hydroponics .. Just one such example .Unfeasible .....except with Ricks technology
  Turning deserts into paradise ...desalinating sea water ,Unfeasible ....except with Ricks technology.


All So Rick and his previous boss could sell us the secrets ??




Something has changed ...the mindset ...if the secrets are true..what does that say about humanity ?
I can sell oxygen or watch a man suffocate for lack of it ?
 Where Are all the customers the last 15/20 years that were taught the secrets ? how do they sleep at night?


 If this is true ..it’s an abomination in my opinion ..a crime against humanity on a global scale which I could never even contemplate ?
 And I could never never ever put my head on the pillow at night with such a secret
end of story .


So Nelson
yeah if I’m wrong I apologize ..if you disagree with what I just wrote then you’re right
We definitely see things differently


 If you need equipment to open source ...don’t hesitate to ask the community .


Respectfully
Chet K
Ps
And I truly hope Stefan  will open source this technology !
 When his friend shares the video here.






Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 10, 2019, 07:42:13 PM
Here  Chet some lecture about renewable energy technology ( ultra/ low cost ) :
https://judbarovski.livejournal.com/ (https://judbarovski.livejournal.com/)
There are OU-searcher who does not know how expensive OU-devices actually are because the industrial pricesfor these devices are high ( capacitor/amorph metals/ cooper coils/ electronic et cet.).

Actually we are in the prototyping stage and not in the mass production stage ! With metals transforming 3d print technology whose produce motors,generator and transformer without salaries costs in the next ten years the semi-industrial "open source" production technology let decrease actual endconsumer prices for such OU-Tech by 75%. !

2030 : the 5  US$cent/ KWh electric becomes for private household electricity generation common !
At first 1 KW-devices = up to 8766 KWh per annum power generation
Development endconsumer  price target : 500 Euros/550 US$
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 10, 2019, 08:01:08 PM
FOR YOUR ATTENTION TINMAN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqXUbKl75x4
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 10, 2019, 08:01:36 PM
 .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 10, 2019, 09:55:02 PM

IMO
We can do better than this “sharing “. that we see here!
 
Don’t think I ever watched  that  Music video
A member shared these Tesla Quotes  recently
evidence to substantiate the non-physical?

Here Tesla again speaking of the Aether
 “All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never-ending cycles all things and phenomena.”– Nikola Tesla, Man’s Greatest Achievement, 1907
  "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” -Nikola Tesla
 “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – Nikola Tesla
“ End


I don’t know about  PRANA ? Everyone’s entitled to their own beliefs
Or lack of beliefs
 One thing we can most definitely agree on ..when it comes to this planet  human life and our survival
we should always do the next right thing.
 15 years is long enough Rick
IMO It’s 15 years too long.


Hoping Stefan will share his friends work


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 11, 2019, 02:25:43 PM
About commercial fan motor use before and after :
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/03/21/qm-power-electric-motor-pj-piper.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/03/21/qm-power-electric-motor-pj-piper.html)
"A recent test .... resulted in wattage use declining from 112,2 before the retrofit to 24,2 afterward.  ......"
                                                   
             before/after over-unity ratio : efficiency C. O. P. f.e. 112,2/24,2 = 4,6 ( times better e-use)
                                                             Commercial calculation :
                        "Up to 98% of the cost from an electric motor is in the energy it consumes ".......

New experience ? Dynamotors and Texas&Austin University study +- 15 years before : same result
https://www.google.com/search?q=dynamotors+variable+speed+drive&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=dynamotors+variable+speed+drive&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)
It would be easier - by the search for overunity devices-to make 1 Wh - 10 Wh - 100 Wh - 1000 Wh- storage capacity/ grid electricity and power use comparison :how long/prolong the power use  in time units for the same physical function !
An AA battery study : with fan as load
https://www.cinemasound.com/showdown-aa-battery-value-the-results-will-shock-you/ (https://www.cinemasound.com/showdown-aa-battery-value-the-results-will-shock-you/)

From 112,2 to 24,2 Wattage with qmpower motor :
        https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9318 (https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9318)              FANERATOR
          120 Watt high velocity fan before/ after with qmpower motor ?

Fan blade performance with/out
https://www.google.com/search?q=pax+pacific+impeller&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=pax+pacific+impeller&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)

PMA 750 Watt generator to 1500 Watt generator :
          wind driven generator
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130038069A1/de (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130038069A1/de)
       Peak/average "compressed air chamber turbine" C. O. P.  ?
                        Calculation :

660 Watt PMA generator  peak output x Factor 2 Akio Hara coaxial generator : 1320 Watt

divided by conventional fan motor consume.                                                               120 Watt = C. O. P.  11

divided by assumed qmpower fan motor consume.                                                      30 Watt = C. O. P.  44

+ fan blade performance improvement.                                                                                             C.O..P.  50  ?

Enough preservation between C. O. P.  = > 1 and =< 50  8)


Conventional PMA generator 660 Wattp output/ 120 Watt conventional fan blade motor consume - fan blade motor consume decreaser f.e.https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=11462 (https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=11462)
660 Watt out/12 Watt in : peak C. O. P.  55

Conventional PMA generator and qmpower fan blade motor and  closed solar battery cycle energy source :   

https://patents.google.com/patent/DE3817730A1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/DE3817730A1/enArtificial)
Artificial solar meets artificial wind
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 12, 2019, 01:38:47 PM
OK


 Will be updating here tonight
 I did speak with the lab mentioned by Rick ( member Void asked me a question ..so I called )
 Will be speaking to Stefan  today also ( I hope )


For clarity I am behind timewise to many members here
 It is 8 AM as I type this east coast USA


Again remember what we do here
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 12, 2019, 07:10:03 PM
Who are" the poor" and what they can afford monetary and in time invest  ?
FIRST TARGET : https://mtbest.net/energy_efficiency.html (https://mtbest.net/energy_efficiency.html)
                              800 Watt/h DC electricity per household and day delivery

                          Battery : 2028 1 KWh capacity for 10 US$ price decline
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.carmart.ch%2Fumwelt%2Fpreise-fuer-batterien-von-elektroautos-fallen-massiv-in-10-jahren-90%2F (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.carmart.ch%2Fumwelt%2Fpreise-fuer-batterien-von-elektroautos-fallen-massiv-in-10-jahren-90%2F)

                          Battery Amperage source : 3 x hydro-carbon generator a 12 V/1,5 A

http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=FR&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=633752&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=fr&TRGLANG=en (http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=FR&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=633752&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=fr&TRGLANG=en)

                           
                           3 x (12 V x 1,5 Ah x 24 h ) = 1296 VAh per day

Each hydro-carbon generator < 10 US$ + 10 US$ battery = total battery-genset < 50 US$
                                                                 Affordable ?

Alternatively as battery source : Don Adsitts " earth battery " concept

https://web.archive.org/web/20070225160446/http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20070225160446/http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/)
Goto "Main Menue" : 

        E-Bay and other Plans :  NO HYDROGEN NEEDED_FREE_ENERGY_FROM_THE_ EARTH
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: nelsonrochaa on August 12, 2019, 07:58:11 PM
Nelson
here  the membership has purchased (together through donations) oscilloscopes and equipment
here there are  people in the membership who donate equipment to people who experiment


It is only open source ...and only to people who open source their work
So yes absolutely you can take that to the bank if you’re going to open source and you need equipment
 just as in the past it will happen again.



There is something very strange in this conversation and I don’t know if it’s language barrier or something hidden
it needs to be spoken
brutal honesty is the only way forward


Hi Ramset,

Sorry about the delay in my answer but i'm a bit busy last days.
I really don't see nothing strange Ramset in our conversation , even any fault of honesty .We only have some difference opinions, and visions about some subjects but righteousness above all !

Answering you :

I know this fórum is Open source,.. but what i need to share exactly ?
 I already share some circuits in OU.  Maybe not what most of people want ..... but i share! You could search , and you will find , inclusive last time here a smart guy that decided  take profits from one of the the circuit i share. But that is other story .  But i understand that i’m ineligible …
 So could you tell me exactly what I would have to open source? Or what Others users share to receive support to have help to have 4 channel Scope  ? Only in this way i could understand the real meaning of help and share . Isn't that exactly what this is about? but at what price ?
I'm trying return to some of my last experiments, after i loose almost my equipaments in Germany, i am trying to get back to some projects that have been on the shelf, but it is not easy without some equipment and motivation.  Well we will see what happens in future .


All the best


Nelson Rocha






Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 12, 2019, 08:39:59 PM
 Nelson

  I understand  yes it seems confusing ,I think we should talk ?
How to move forward?


 On the other subject I did speak With Stefan just now About my discussion with the lab this morning And I asked him also for an update on his friends Work.


I have to be honest I hesitate to type these words, but my long experience here with different members and their claims  makes this easier for me .


Yes the man at the lab did have a machine that he used to do job site work, it ran for a month and a half  and used batteries .
 The batteries had to be negatively conditioned (took 4 months to “treat” the batteries) and were extremely annoying to manage .
So little power for so many batteries , he was happy to be finished with the machine and glad when they were able to hook up to the mains  .


 Today I asked him wouldn’t it be nice to understand the mechanism that was at work , could we investigate this deeper ,We talked a bit about how to do that.


 It is hoped that this will happen here , I will be speaking with him again tomorrow about this .
Also Stefan will be coordinating with his friend for that  replication video ..to hopefully
Be shared here.
Respectfully
Chet








Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 13, 2019, 12:12:55 AM
Chet,
Why the hostilites again?

What you say misrepresents what he experienced and said. You make it out like there was 4 months where he could get nothing out of the system as if it suddenly was able to be used. That is absolutely false and misrepresenting. The batteries get more and more conditioned as time passes.

Furthermore, he didn't have big batteries for that system. I believe they were only 100AH batteries. No doubt they were more than he wanted to use as he wanted a system without batteries. That old system normally uses much bigger battery banks. I have been showing how to use transformers instead of big banks.

Also, he was not so negative about the experience. The actual fact is that he built a massive house and he would have needed a much bigger setup to power it. In the end he would have still had to have over 10 times the battery bank with solar anyway.

Also, he was only doing the basic process and not the more advanced processes.

The point you don't wish to focus on is that it worked. You wanted a Lab to confirm this. You recommended that Lab. They said it worked. It wasn't want they wanted because they want something without batteries. But that is a starting point. It is a basic starting point. Most people here do not believe that is possible.

Nelson

  I understand  yes it seems confusing ,I think we should talk ?
How to move forward?


 On the other subject I did speak With Stefan just now About my discussion with the lab this morning And I asked him also for an update on his friends Work.


I have to be honest I hesitate to type these words, but my long experience here with different members and their claims  makes this easier for me .


Yes the man at the lab did have a machine that he used to do job site work, it ran for a month and a half  and used batteries .
 The batteries had to be negatively conditioned (took 4 months to “treat” the batteries) and were extremely annoying to manage .
So little power for so many batteries , he was happy to be finished with the machine and glad when they were able to hook up to the mains  .


 Today I asked him wouldn’t it be nice to understand the mechanism that was at work , could we investigate this deeper ,We talked a bit about how to do that.


 It is hoped that this will happen here , I will be speaking with him again tomorrow about this .
Also Stefan will be coordinating with his friend for that  replication video ..to hopefully
Be shared here.
Respectfully
Chet
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 13, 2019, 01:11:41 AM
 Rick
you have your hair up for no reason, The batteries had to be treated / conditioned for four months prior to use
Then he used the system for 1 1/2 months  and it was a difficult thing to bring it back-and-forth from the job site every night with all the batteries .
 After all 2000 W on a job site ...one nice circular saw or chop saw and a drop light is what will run .


I state the facts and you accuse me of hostilities?


  Over the years I’ve heard other people mention odd behavior with batteries and I think it needs to be looked into
 David Bowling comes to mind  member Ciftfa  had an anomaly
 And of course all this we read here with batteries  and your old boss .


 I am hoping many more people come forward and share their stories and experiences (Stefan’s friend)


but first things first ...we try and understand what’s happening with the batteries ?


 If you would like to help ?.. that would be wonderful ..if not that’s OK too.
Not looking for any more conflict ,had plenty of that here already .


Definitely hoping more people come forward and share their experiences ,hopefully help others get there too.


And for additional clarity
when we first heard about your system From Aking 21 there were no batteries mentioned?
(that we were aware of )
To be absolutely clear... yes we don’t like batteries here
sure for a while it’s OK ...until we totally understand the gain
Mechanism.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 13, 2019, 01:48:46 AM
Well we have a starting point.
1 OU confirmed
2 All the Naysayers who were moderated were correctly moderated because they attacked without proof.


Now we have proof. Get over it Naysayers.  You lost the battle and the war


And I was right to promote Rick after I did my due diligence (over 40 hours of watching his videos and talking to him on the phone).


I did all that for you.


So I repeat what I said months ago.  We have a real treasure to mine here.  Be nice to Rick cos he has the goods we are all looking for.


Now it's time for me to get on with that Don Smith replication as I have also been sidetracked battling my corner. (and Rick's)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 13, 2019, 02:45:48 AM
This testimony does not confirm OU for anyone else on this forum. It is not proof. It only confirms it for the people who experience it. But it is ironic that I was insulted for not having a Lab testimony, or for even resisting Lab testing, and then the very Lab that was suggest had already had the results that I claimed. This was the basis for the bulk of the insults. So now that that is realized you think that these guys really care about Lab results? No. It was just an excuse to attack. They will just ignore it an just go on as if this never happened. You see people, it is not about meter readings, proving OU in any way, real world or cyberworld. It is about people saying it is impossible, period. 

Anyone should be moderated if they are rude. But that is not going to happen. Those who were moderated were really extreme in the rudeness (I'm not sure who was all moderated and how that worked as I was not a part of that).

Well we have a starting point.
1 OU confirmed
2 All the Naysayers who were moderated were correctly moderated because they attacked without proof.
Now we have proof. Get over it Naysayers.  You lost the battle and the war
And I was right to promote Rick after I did my due diligence (over 40 hours of watching his videos and talking to him on the phone).
I did all that for you.
So I repeat what I said months ago.  We have a real treasure to mine here.  Be nice to Rick cos he has the goods we are all looking for.
Now it's time for me to get on with that Don Smith replication as I have also been sidetracked battling my corner. (and Rick's)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 13, 2019, 03:19:30 AM




 I will write more on this tomorrow
 Have a good night fellas.



Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 13, 2019, 03:31:17 AM
Chet,
You need to sit down in front of a computer and read carefully what people are writing here and then take the time to type out your points carefully in an actual reply. They phone typing is not working out here.

As for whose work is this, if you read what I actually posted or watched my videos I have shown the history of this technology.

Your beef with people in desperation is not with inventors and even with technology, but is purely political and about greed. These enjoy suffering and want a reduced population. The technology has long been around. But even the people who have it don't really care for the most part. Do people care about their health? No. They have the means to be healthier but they just don't care for the most part. You assume that 'To know the good is to the do the good', but that is just not what people do. This is very naïve.

You are ignorant about me. I have not had a boss for 20 years now. If you think Bedini was my boss you are really mistaken. He actually worked for me. I never worked for John or Energenx. I helped them out. Nor was anyone else my boss in any of this work or any other work I have done for the last 20 years.

You then say Rick's technology as if everything I do is strictly my technology. I have shown Benitez systems, Don's Systems, and many others. Did I say that it was mine? No. You really don't know what you are talking about Chet. You said you don't understand electrical systems so I suggest that you keep your thoughts like this to yourself. Because it is not helping anyone.

Selling what secrets?? Not sure what you are talking about. So I'm supposed to work for free but everyone else is commendable for selling labor and services. Yet, here I am sharing for free and then you mock me here as if I am not doing that.

What are you doing? So far all I hear is words.

You're just being dramatic here. All I hear from you is assumptions. You say you don't understand electrical technology. You don't know the history. Yet you make all these judgments. You don't even seem to care if you are accurate. You say one thing on the phone and then a few days later you are back at it.

You misjudge the problem. The truth was long ago told by Tesla. You need to take some time to learn basic electrical systems and then read the important 1891, 1892, and 1893 Tesla lectures. Then you have it. If you really cared like you say you do then you would stop all this judgmentalism and do your homework and share the good news that is old news. But it is easier just to attack people isn't it Chet. Blame someone else than yourself. Assume that they aren't doing anything or sharing anything. Again, just useless words. Nothing positive or helpful. Just tearing down instead of building up. Gloom and doom.

Here the man that Rick shares his work from , who’s work it actually is ?
I have no idea
 This claim predates the Internet .
But here something drastic has changed ...here it has apparently become all right to watch people starve..to watch animals go extinct ...to watch a planet be destroyed  or damaged , drought ...or consequences of toxic chemicals to try and sustain crop yeilds ? (Reefs disappearing oceans estuaries
Starving for oxygen
Huge deforestation ...undrinkable water.. so many things that could be fixed with Ricks technology !
( indoor stackable hydroponics .. Just one such example .Unfeasible .....except with Ricks technology
  Turning deserts into paradise ...desalinating sea water ,Unfeasible ....except with Ricks technology.
All So Rick and his previous boss could sell us the secrets ??
Something has changed ...the mindset ...if the secrets are true..what does that say about humanity ?
I can sell oxygen or watch a man suffocate for lack of it ?
 Where Are all the customers the last 15/20 years that were taught the secrets ? how do they sleep at night?
 If this is true ..it’s an abomination in my opinion ..a crime against humanity on a global scale which I could never even contemplate ?
 And I could never never ever put my head on the pillow at night with such a secret
end of story .
So Nelson
yeah if I’m wrong I apologize ..if you disagree with what I just wrote then you’re right
We definitely see things differently
 If you need equipment to open source ...don’t hesitate to ask the community .
Respectfully
Chet K
Ps
And I truly hope Stefan  will open source this technology !
 When his friend shares the video here.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 13, 2019, 03:54:29 AM
Chet,
It's like you are not only using your phone to type this, but you are distracted while doing, like driving or talking to someone.

No, the batteries do not have to be treated for four months prior to use. If Bedini told him that then that is not my fault and not the truth. I have taught this for 15 years now to thousands of people, including this customer. What you have done, is now disregarded that setup as worthless because you have misunderstood what actually took place or needed to take place.

Again, making this mobile is desirable, and that is fine. But it doesn't mean that it is not practical if it isn't. And that was also just the super basic setup. That was a long time ago as well. But it still worked as expected. Again, instead of saying, yeah it worked and did produce significant results, you have to exaggerate things and make it sound so bad. That is not the conversation I had with this customer. It was about needed a whole lot more power and there were other reasons that had nothing to do with my system. Yes, 2000W of free energy. But he had it on the lowest setting because he had really small batteries at low voltage. It was capable of a lot more.

This was exactly the same thing that the skeptics came to after 2+ years of similar debates. It's not enough free energy. I don't want to use batteries. Well I showed them more then, and more now if you bother to pay attention. Some people have and are off doing just that. But you have no way to evaluate technology so you just end up saying things you don't understand here.

You state facts? How do you know them? You misrepresented the facts. Did you go there and see it running so many years ago? You see people, I don't expect people to believe a claim that even supports me. That is not how things work. You have to prove these things for yourself. But here we have a positive claim that is being turned around to appear to be negative when that was not the case.

Bedini was not my boss as I have written already. You just don't know what say.
If you are not looking for conflict then stop creating it with by assuming things. If you have a question I always answer the phone. You could have avoided this needless hostility and make yourself look bad by intentionally trying to make me look bad.

Batteries are not going away any time soon. They are fine to work with. They are easy to learn several systems with. I can't help you if you are given to what you like and don't like. Beggars can't be choosers. Take what is freely provided and stop being so greedy with your insults for more. Most of the guys here don't even believe OU is possible, and you are insulting because you want more. You haven't even bothered to read so many of the things I have shared about how to multiply the basic system without batteries. So you need to stop sleeping (as you condemned others for) and read what has been shared and then save the world Chet. Surely you will succeed now. Because once you have it surely all the world governments and big corporations will allow you go give it to everyone in five minutes. And then we will just all hold hands and love one another. Yeah right. Just naïve.

Rick
you have your hair up for no reason, The batteries had to be treated / conditioned for four months prior to use
Then he used the system for 1 1/2 months  and it was a difficult thing to bring it back-and-forth from the job site every night with all the batteries .
 After all 2000 W on a job site ...one nice circular saw or chop saw and a drop light is what will run .
I state the facts and you accuse me of hostilities?
  Over the years I’ve heard other people mention odd behavior with batteries and I think it needs to be looked into
 David Bowling comes to mind  member Ciftfa  had an anomaly
 And of course all this we read here with batteries  and your old boss .
 I am hoping many more people come forward and share their stories and experiences (Stefan’s friend)
but first things first ...we try and understand what’s happening with the batteries ?
 If you would like to help ?.. that would be wonderful ..if not that’s OK too.
Not looking for any more conflict ,had plenty of that here already .
Definitely hoping more people come forward and share their experiences ,hopefully help others get there too.
And for additional clarity
when we first heard about your system From Aking 21 there were no batteries mentioned?
(that we were aware of )
To be absolutely clear... yes we don’t like batteries here
sure for a while it’s OK ...until we totally understand the gain
Mechanism.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on August 13, 2019, 10:20:46 AM
Hey Rick this machine must be what you have been talking about all this time!  :o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=FnhXZTi-Hso

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 13, 2019, 02:28:13 PM
 OK
Hopefully a good experiment that can show a gain can be modeled , after speaking with the man at the lab ,  The best possible circuit to show the maximum surge in the proper direction while utilizing the proper battery  To collect ...will be assembled ,Hopefully some sensors giving input data to an arduino
 Or other method to collate the data And manage the cycling will be established.
  The rest should be self-evident .
RE recent comments
 had heard years back that there were machines sitting dormant ..was always confused by this ?
And honestly thought they were Johns machines ,When I read here that they were your machines
And now I read that John worked for you !
I felt an opportunity exsisted to advance this knowledge into the community .
 But now that the machines are gone ..?


I’ve written many times why I work open source , to me the biggest asset is the people and they will also benefit the most , A great motivator
 You have made it clear why you don’t work open source .


I take a very strong stance that lives and so much more depend on this technology and you seem to have come to peace with the cost of withholding and prioritizing your well being ... and a much slower path ,So far it’s been 15 years and you have 50 variants of OU ?


 As I have mentioned  many times ,there are hundreds of thousands of members in these FE forums
 I see people that can help Bring change ...And feel no need to micromanage ... I trust that they will understand  a well presented experiment with a clear schematic and very specific claims
 Claims which will withstand all scrutiny.


That is the goal here
 And we have amazing resources to investigate this .


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 13, 2019, 02:33:41 PM
Ramset:  The way I see it is this:  Rick's credibility has been established.
Therefore we can take it on trust that his Don Smith information is verified as he claims...


So.......................................................................? ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 13, 2019, 02:47:45 PM
 Aking
Yes that is the claim here and the goal
gain without batteries


I am hoping that more persons will share their results and Experiences
15 years has been long enough
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman on August 13, 2019, 03:29:28 PM
 author=a.king21 link=topic=17491.msg538360#msg538360 date=1565653726


Quote
1 OU confirmed

Lies
No OU has been confirmed.
Please post link to confirmed OU device,where accurate measurements have been made.

Quote
2 All the Naysayers who were moderated were correctly moderated because they attacked without proof.

The one's that should have been moderated are those making claim's,but could never back them up with real data.

Quote
Now we have proof. Get over it Naysayers.  You lost the battle and the war

You have no confirmation or proof of an OU device.
You live in la,la land.

Quote
And I was right to promote Rick after I did my due diligence (over 40 hours of watching his videos and talking to him on the phone).

No,you were wrong.

Quote
I did all that for you.

Oh yes,we have all seen what you had part in,and that was getting good people moderated because they questioned Rick's claim's--along with your own.

Quote
So I repeat what I said months ago.  We have a real treasure to mine here.  Be nice to Rick cos he has the goods we are all looking for.

Rick has nothing,and has shown nothing.
The only treasure that was delivered was an empty chest.

Quote
Now it's time for me to get on with that Don Smith replication as I have also been sidetracked battling my corner. (and Rick's)

Oh please.
At OUR you  stated you couldn't even measure the power in and out in your own system,and now you claim to be building a Don Smith power waster.

Not one single device or person you and Rick keep quoting has a self running OU device--and that's a fact.

Rick's claim's have died--no one is interested in 100 more pages of nothingness,and that is all you and Rick have delivered.

In fact,you and Rick have done more damage to Stefan's forum than anyone else before you's.
This forum lost a lot of great experimenters due to you and Rick.
Thankfully at OUR you were put back in your box before it got out of hand.


Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: e2matrix on August 13, 2019, 05:06:57 PM
author=a.king21 link=topic=17491.msg538360#msg538360 date=1565653726


Lies
No OU has been confirmed.
Please post link to confirmed OU device,where accurate measurements have been made.

The one's that should have been moderated are those making claim's,but could never back them up with real data.

You have no confirmation or proof of an OU device.
You live in la,la land.

No,you were wrong.

Oh yes,we have all seen what you had part in,and that was getting good people moderated because they questioned Rick's claim's--along with your own.

Rick has nothing,and has shown nothing.
The only treasure that was delivered was an empty chest.

Oh please.
At OUR you  stated you couldn't even measure the power in and out in your own system,and now you claim to be building a Don Smith power waster.

Not one single device or person you and Rick keep quoting has a self running OU device--and that's a fact.

Rick's claim's have died--no one is interested in 100 more pages of nothingness,and that is all you and Rick have delivered.

In fact,you and Rick have done more damage to Stefan's forum than anyone else before you's.
This forum lost a lot of great experimenters due to you and Rick.
Thankfully at OUR you were put back in your box before it got out of hand.


Brad


Agree 100% with tinman.


ramset - don't let RF's BS get to you and it seems that is his purpose - he probably hopes you will go away as he posts all his attacks.   I never thought I'd see the day when someone was attacking one of the most helpful people here who has done nothing but try to get free energy to the people.   We know you are the good guy Chet.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on August 13, 2019, 05:17:01 PM

Agree 100% with tinman.


ramset - don't let RF's BS get to you and it seems that is his purpose - he probably hopes you will go away as he posts all his attacks.   I never thought I'd see the day when someone was attacking one of the most helpful people here who has done nothing but try to get free energy to the people.   We know you are the good guy Chet.


I agree 100% with both you guys.  So far the only thing proven in this thread is that some people are great at generating word salad that says nothing of substance.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 13, 2019, 06:38:15 PM
That is similar but significantly different.

Hey Rick this machine must be what you have been talking about all this time!  :o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=FnhXZTi-Hso

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 13, 2019, 06:58:39 PM
Chet,
So far I don't have any indication that you contribute anything but words and insults. You have no care for details and just blurt out what comes to mind or what you vaguely remember or misremember. Maybe you justify your significance here in this work.

Again, you heard things but don't pay attention to details. Bedini had a few larger monopoles, 6 coiler, 10 coiler, and 12 coiler that indeed sat and collected dust. They were almost never run, and it was me that ran them here and there for the most part. I also had the big batteries in my shop as well. Bedini never powered anything in the shop or home all those years even though several of us urged him to. He would not even make an electric vehicle.

These motors should have gone to the shareholders but I don't think that happened. All the details about those motors have been long shared by me. The patents are also expired so it is open source Chet. Take the time to learn the basic details before you issue your condemnations.

I had my own motors that were 4 coiler, 10 coiler and 12 coiler and the magnetic window motors. These were very similar. Later I changed them with about seven significant differences to allow for more than double the torque, etc.

You say you "work open source". What work have you done? Talk?

I have been the most open source of anyone in this work. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Therefore I see you as a deliberate hostile provocateur. You continuously say the opposite from what you know or what is obvious.

For the last 15 years who has been the one sharing all this information Chet? Was it you? No. It was me. So more lies from you.

In light of your deliberate distortions and lies here why would anyone want to have anything to do with you. You also have no ability to judge these matters yourself. So all your words here have been useless and destructive.

OK
Hopefully a good experiment that can show a gain can be modeled , after speaking with the man at the lab ,  The best possible circuit to show the maximum surge in the proper direction while utilizing the proper battery  To collect ...will be assembled ,Hopefully some sensors giving input data to an arduino
 Or other method to collate the data And manage the cycling will be established.
  The rest should be self-evident .
RE recent comments
 had heard years back that there were machines sitting dormant ..was always confused by this ?
And honestly thought they were Johns machines ,When I read here that they were your machines
And now I read that John worked for you !
I felt an opportunity exsisted to advance this knowledge into the community .
 But now that the machines are gone ..?
I’ve written many times why I work open source , to me the biggest asset is the people and they will also benefit the most , A great motivator
 You have made it clear why you don’t work open source .
I take a very strong stance that lives and so much more depend on this technology and you seem to have come to peace with the cost of withholding and prioritizing your well being ... and a much slower path ,So far it’s been 15 years and you have 50 variants of OU ?
 As I have mentioned  many times ,there are hundreds of thousands of members in these FE forums
 I see people that can help Bring change ...And feel no need to micromanage ... I trust that they will understand  a well presented experiment with a clear schematic and very specific claims
 Claims which will withstand all scrutiny.
That is the goal here
 And we have amazing resources to investigate this .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 13, 2019, 07:33:41 PM
Brad,
It is true that OU cannot be confirmed through the internet. But you ignore the FACT that hostile Chet, and so many others here, scolded me for not showing a Lab testimony. Then Chet tells me what Lab to use and they had already had the very results I mentioned here. This is rather ironic isn't it? I mean, I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe Chet as he admits he has no ability to evaluate electrical technology. And why would his statement from people at that Lab mean anything to anyone else who did not witness such things? Well at least this should shut him up from all those condemnations. Yet it hasn't apparently.

Again, it really doesn't matter what is shown, demonstrated, etc., because you guys all have an agenda here to silence and disprove OU. Data is meaningless unless you were there to fully observe it and know all the parts, equipment, and environment. You are a joker Brad, you need to read a book and learn what science, evidence and proof is. Indeed you are right when you say this about yourself: "The only treasure that was delivered was an empty chest."

Moderation was not based upon doubting anything but because of repeated abusive attacks as far as I could see.

Do you have the all-seeing-eye Brad that you know that: "Not one single device or person you and Rick keep quoting has a self running OU device". I showed a video of a guy that demonstrated just that. That is evidence for a self-running OU device. But somehow you determine what is fact. You are everywhere and know everything so that you can create your own reality I guess. You spend too much time in fantasy so that you can't even tell what the real world is. Apparently you really believe this and so you are actually deranged.

So now my claims have died. Yeah, that's why we have 156,000 views on this thread about just a few of my claims. The nothingness is from the likes of you and others that never respond to my points but just make empty statements like OU is impossible, You didn't do this. You can't do that. You don't know anything. Bla bla bla.

But on the contrary, there are many people who are watching and benefiting from this one-sided exchange. Several of you, especially you, have lost your credibility completely. Guys who followed you from the beginning. Guys who know your back story and why you are acting this way even. They are very disappointed with you Brad. The Tinman lacks a heart.

I am very glad that I have damaged all the Troll activity from you guys here. That is why so many people are cheering behind the scenes. This forum has been mostly useless because you guys, and others before you, have controlled it with the sole purposes of suppressing OU research. That is the purpose of OUR as well apparently. It is now a proven fact well demonstrated in these last 100 pages. The views here show how significant this is. Your desperation to counteract that also demonstrates this. If you were correct that I have shown nothing and have said nothing important then all of you would just have moved along, Trolling as usual. But no. You admit that I ruined all this trolling. I answered all the questions again and again you guys didn't answer my questions. You pulled every trick in the book. You lied, twisted, deflected, and even reveled in using red herrings! You have been completely closed minded. You even apologized several times in the middle of this. This is all desperations Brad. Maybe you are fighting so hard to keep your job and suppressing OU? Is that the case Brad? I mean, why are you here making such a fool of yourself over and over again?

You lost everyone finally when you took the gullible credulous position in denying the following after all that has been said:

POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.


author=a.king21 link=topic=17491.msg538360#msg538360 date=1565653726
Lies
No OU has been confirmed.
Please post link to confirmed OU device,where accurate measurements have been made.
The one's that should have been moderated are those making claim's,but could never back them up with real data.
You have no confirmation or proof of an OU device.
You live in la,la land.
No,you were wrong.
Oh yes,we have all seen what you had part in,and that was getting good people moderated because they questioned Rick's claim's--along with your own.
Rick has nothing,and has shown nothing.
The only treasure that was delivered was an empty chest.
Oh please.
At OUR you  stated you couldn't even measure the power in and out in your own system,and now you claim to be building a Don Smith power waster.
Not one single device or person you and Rick keep quoting has a self running OU device--and that's a fact.
Rick's claim's have died--no one is interested in 100 more pages of nothingness,and that is all you and Rick have delivered.
In fact,you and Rick have done more damage to Stefan's forum than anyone else before you's.
This forum lost a lot of great experimenters due to you and Rick.
Thankfully at OUR you were put back in your box before it got out of hand.
Brad
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: lancaIV on August 13, 2019, 07:51:10 PM
Mister Friedrich,  not meaning OU but better efficiency performance :
you wrote to get the torque doubled( by same input !?)!
How much torque/Nm per Watt or VA ( AC or DC or pulsed DC )?


http://www.chorusmotors.gi/technology/index.php

Other electric motor high torque claimer :
https://peswiki.com/directory:electric-motors (https://peswiki.com/directory:electric-motors)


"... can outperform any existing electric motor now in use or undergoing testing by a factor of at least 1000 in terms of torque out for watt in ,...."  ???
http://maddsci.tripod.com/george/id11.html (http://maddsci.tripod.com/george/id11.html)

James A. Dinnan ,Georgia ( University Professor ?)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=TW&NR=200627764A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20060801&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=TW&NR=200627764A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20060801&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)

Table 6.  3-phase motor
Before 552 Watt per hour               later with " concept" implementation : 182 Watt per hour

Heat pump with/out Meta C motor C.O.P. ?                   

                                     Jakelj                       

                                    Chorus
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 13, 2019, 08:58:43 PM
author=a.king21 link=topic=17491.msg538360#msg538360 date=1565653726


Lies
No OU has been confirmed.
Please post link to confirmed OU device,where accurate measurements have been made.


Ramset confirmed it


Quote
You have no confirmation or proof of an OU device.
You live in la,la land.

No,you were wrong.
Ramset confirmed it

Quote
Oh yes,we have all seen what you had part in,and that was getting good people moderated because they questioned Rick's claim's--along with your own.
[/font][/size]
I had nothing to do with anyone being moderated.  Another Tinman wrong assumption.

Quote
Rick has nothing,and has shown nothing.
The only treasure that was delivered was an empty chest.


At OUR you  stated you couldn't even measure the power in and out in your own system,and now you claim to be building a Don Smith power waster.
That is because in my book when you have no input you do not need to measure.  ::)

Quote
  Not one single device or person you and Rick keep quoting has a self running OU device--and that's a fact.


Rubbish.

Quote
Rick's claim's have died--no one is interested in 100 more pages of nothingness,and that is all you and Rick have delivered.

In fact,you and Rick have done more damage to Stefan's forum than anyone else before you's.
This forum lost a lot of great experimenters due to you and Rick.
Thankfully at OUR you were put back in your box before it got out of hand.


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....
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: citfta on August 13, 2019, 09:35:16 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 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?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: SeaMonkey 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.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on August 13, 2019, 11:23:54 PM
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated (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 !
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 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. ;)






Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin 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 ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin 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...

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: tinman 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad 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  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prony_brake)

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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...


Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Void 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. :) 

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich 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 ?
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich 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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gotoluc on August 14, 2019, 10:39:17 PM
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.).

Sorry Rick but that is incorrect!... you do not need twice the output to self loop a device.
All you need is isolation between input and output and the output power only needs to be 1% over the input power.
If those conditions can be continuously maintained (no fluctuations) then that is enough to sustain self loop conditions.

If you don't believe me just say so and I will prove you wrong and show you how it's done. I will even demonstrate it without any doubt in a way you say it is not possible by making a video demo on the internet.

You have had advice from the best of real Experimenters that I know of, like Tinsel Koala, Itsu, Guyla, Partzman, TinMan, CITFTA and you still keep repeating unsupported claims we have all heard of and tested in the past from the supposable knowers of the secrets which you can buy from guys like Aaron just to find in the end they really have nothing.

So if you want to validate your argument stop arguing and put out the proof just like I'm willing to do to prove you wrong about needing twice the output power to self loop.
However, know this is a two way exchange, so if you're dead set on never providing any proof to your claims then it's clear you have nothing like Aaron and have lost this ridiculously long for nothing argument.
So if Rick is not willing to work in a two way exchange, then I ask all researchers to stop wasting time in this topic unless you have real proof to share and not just words.

Regards
Luc
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gyulasun on August 15, 2019, 12:13:42 AM
Luc,

It would be good to read first what exactly Rick means on a COP > 1 performance, for instance ? How he defines COP.  He mentions work done which sounds good for a start...

Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 15, 2019, 01:19:58 AM
Luc,
Like I wrote: "depending on how you define efficiency, COP, etc." The context I am speaking here is in using two different forms of energy output. Mechanical and electrical. This is at a really basic level here.
So if you can show that then why haven't you? I thought that is what you guys were after? Am I missing something here Luc?
If you believe a video can prove OU over the internet then you are naïve and expect people to be as well. Now a video can show people how to prove it to themselves, but you cannot prove the video is genuine, not altered, or that the environment is not manipulated, etc.
If these guys are the best then you don't know anyone. They have revealed basic level knowledge and zero knowledge about nonlinear science. Maybe they are great with linear systems but they assume that is everything.
I have supported my claims but you guys just ignore them. Now these guys claims are unsupported. Why is it that only I am required to support claims. And since when is anyone required to do anything here or online? I mean, this is only an information sharing place. You guys have made into an inquisition. It's ridiculous.  ::) Everyone repeats their claims and that is fine. It's just that I have supported them. I have shared the theory right from the top electrical pioneers and the top today. I have also demonstrated these things to thousands of people in the real world. I have also shown way more how to do these things for themselves. That is all the support possible. But you guys have showed zero for your claims and then just resort to personal attacks. These guys well even deny what they just wrote a few posts back! It shows a manifest conspiracy right here with these guys you so admire.

I don't know what Aaron has. He was a joke. But he knows how to make money. I understand why people are so made. I have more reason than all of you put together to be upset with him. Yet I don't reject everything he said or has done because of that. There is a lot of useful information for Dollard and I appreciate that. I have no idea their arrangements as I was never involved, and I don't know anything about all the drama with other people. I'm just saying this because I see manifest over-reaction prejudice. At least on his forum people are open to OU. Here most of the people are manifestly hostile to it. They argue against the essential OU processes while refusing to justify their claims. They will not give the basis or foundation for their theory of electromagnetism. I have pointed them to Faraday and Maxwell but they ignore that foundational testimony. I have point to Tesla, Kron, Barrett and still nothing. I could list hundreds more at the very top. This is not name dropping either. It is quoting them in the essential points. Zero response. Silence as if I never wrote it. Then I show some super basic things and all I get is circle reasoning that says they are right because they are right. Never any explanation. The only one that tried was G. And that was just a diversion from the point at hand. That is why I realize something else is going on here as it has been from the beginning of this forum. There have always been extremely hostile forces here at play to keep this forum from actually being about OU. It is about disproving OU and attacking people. You guys are not serious at all. Some are, but they just get shot down. You guys don't even give people a chance. You are just mean people. But there is something more than that. Naturally there are trillions of dollars at stake in this as everyone knows, so naturally there is some money spent to hire people to do this. And this is why they get so upset when they fail to do their disinfor job...

You have made a big huff-puff about nothing Luc. You misunderstand my point. I really don't care about how much it takes to make a self-runner. I made an Newman/Window motor, actually 2 or 3 self-run with very little output. No big deal. I showed these many years ago. I made magnet motors as well. So I understand your point. Don't miss my point. And get upset about things that really matter.

I have long proved my claims. You also have testimony that you disregard that you know very well. I just confirmed that. If you don't believe me then move on. It is that simple. I am just sharing information. I have no interest in proving something to a hostile person, and being foolish in thinking that something like this can be proven over the internet. That is a real joke. Shows how childish you people are.

Good luck on getting these guys to drop this. It is their job to suppress it. If it was all just a joke and I had nothing, then they all would have just made a few statements and moved on. But they all know it is real, that is very obvious. What the specific motives are only they know. The words tell a lot however.

Quote from: rickfriedrich on August 14, 2019, 05:49:18 PM
"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.). "

Luc writes:
Sorry Rick but that is incorrect!... you do not need twice the output to self loop a device.
All you need is isolation between input and output and the output power only needs to be 1% over the input power.
If those conditions can be continuously maintained (no fluctuations) then that is enough to sustain self loop conditions.

If you don't believe me just say so and I will prove you wrong and show you how it's done. I will even demonstrate it without any doubt in a way you say it is not possible by making a video demo on the internet.

You have had advice from the best of real Experimenters that I know of, like Tinsel Koala, Itsu, Guyla, Partzman, TinMan, CITFTA and you still keep repeating unsupported claims we have all heard of and tested in the past from the supposable knowers of the secrets which you can buy from guys like Aaron just to find in the end they really have nothing.

So if you want to validate your argument stop arguing and put out the proof just like I'm willing to do to prove you wrong about needing twice the output power to self loop.
However, know this is a two way exchange, so if you're dead set on never providing any proof to your claims then it's clear you have nothing like Aaron and have lost this ridiculously long for nothing argument.
So if Rick is not willing to work in a two way exchange, then I ask all researchers to stop wasting time in this topic unless you have real proof to share and not just words.

Regards
Luc
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 15, 2019, 01:34:11 AM
THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF FREE ENERGY IS EFFICIENCY AND ONE NEED TO KNOW
WHERE THE ENERGY IS COMING FROM.
https://newatlas.com/linear-labs-hunstable-electric-motor/60974/
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 15, 2019, 01:50:16 AM
Chet,
I just got off the phone with the customer who is responsible for that Lab and I was right about what I said, and you are not. You are speaking to a middleman who was not there for this and also is mistaken about several things.
Your statements are misleading as I wrote:

1. They didn't only produce loads for 1.5 months.
2. The whole time they conditioned the batteries for three months they loaded them down to 10V. That was real energy the whole time. Now I just told them that if they had talked to me about it, and not Bedini who misled them, that if they had discharged them down to 1 or 0 volts it would have been a whole lot faster.
3. These batteries had the negative energy phenomena. Such a battery was shown to this middleman.
4. The customer did need a massive system so that setup was not big enough. The customer didn't think of the system so negatively as the "nuisance" word implies. He was looking for a system without batteries. And that is fair enough. But it did work just as expected. He just wasn't aware of anything more than the basic system. If I had been in contact at the time I would have shared the things I have now shared with him.

So it's hearsay when the Lab tells you they have the exact results I was talking about. But it would not be hearsay if the Lab reported negative results. Nice double standard. Just like everything on this thread.

This very experience once again proves my point. Information from a Lab conveyed to people on this thread gets changed to show something worse than what was experienced. And this was the Lab recommended to verify these things with! This is why the whole OUR thing is a joke. You can't trust anyone else to verify something. Even when the Lab reports something people can change it. But the Lab can be paid to make it not work. Or they can make a mistake as well. This happens all the time. So again it is established:


POINTS HAVING BEEN PROVEN SINCE JUNE 2019:
1. OU Claims and Disproof OU Claims Cannot be Proven Over Video, Pictures, and Words Over the Internet. People Can Only do Science and Prove Truths of Demonstration to Themselves In The Real World.
2. Forums Can Only Provide Information to Other People which Needs Personal Verification Unless it is Self-evident.
3. Free Energy and Over Unity Do Not Imply Self-running or Self-looping, while the Inverse is True.

  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
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 15, 2019, 01:51:52 AM
It would appear that Rick has dug himself into a hole and is
trying desperately to defend his hole with rash accusations.

It's behavior we see time and time again with those who
claim to have found real overunity.

Matt Jones, Dave Bowlin and now Rick Freidrich are singing
the same refrain which goes something like this:

"My science is good, it's all of those who question
my claims who haven't the ability to see the greatness
of what I've accomplished!!  They're bad people who are
against Real Science and who are determined to prevent
the path to overunity being realized by anybody!!"

If those who are making their premature claims of overunity
would meticulously abide by the Scientific Method in establishing
their "proofs," without letting their egos get in the way, they'd
surely see the folly of what they are doing.

Or, perhaps not.  Those who are deceived often resort to
hostile ugliness to defend their error.

When and if Real Overunity or Free Energy in any electrical
circuit or device
is actually discovered, the phenomenon
should speak for itself in Truth.  The Overunity should be
foolproof rather than capricious;  always available rather
than sometimes it happens but usually not.

Those who claim to have found Overunity should be able
to show what its source is, how it is being harvested and
why it works.  So far, this has not been done conclusively
with any claim anywhere.  Apart from the obvious exceptions
of course, such as wind, solar, and water power.

While the free energy able to be made manifest by Daniel
Pomerleau is indeed real, it cannot be explained by Science
as we presently limit it.  It is energy that comes from a place
we are reluctant to consider.  It is being exploited, however,
in Secret Programs with the assistance of certain entities
whose existence is generally denied.

Disclosure is coming but not yet.  One day we will all know.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 15, 2019, 02:30:13 AM
You invert the real story. You guys are desperate. This is only an information exchange. You can't prove anything here besides your own self-contradictions as we have seen now confirmed again and again. What you are talking about is what Brad did as I have pointed out. I could care less what you guys think or even say. I share this information with those silent readers who are growing by the day. There are about 158,000 views on this thread for a reason.
Speaking of behavior, we have seen these things for many years now with people who refuse to back up anything they say, and who never respond to fundamental questions. This is called fallacy and evasion.

You miss the point. I came here telling you right away that I DON'T EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE MY CLAIMS. Did you read that Monkey? I have repeated this hundreds of times now. So that says a lot about you doesn't it. My point is that people need to prove something to themselves. So notice what you are saying:
"My science is good, it's all of those who question my claims who haven't the ability to see the greatness of what I've accomplished!!  They're bad people who are against Real Science and who are determined to prevent the path to [disproving] overunity being realized by anybody!!"

Do you see the problem with fallacies, they can be self-defeating. All that has been shown here is self-proclaimed disproof claims while people inflate their greatness. I never claimed greatness. There is no need for greatness in this research.
But it is true that people have largely set out to disprove OU. Just read what they are arguing for.

Yeah you need to put your ego aside. That is what I have been arguing from day one.

Truth does speak for itself, but it is a fact that people generally disregard what they know to be true. There is no justification for your statement about OU in this regard. Says who? Also with the next statement. What is and what you want it to be are different things. The statements are foolish.

It is not true that if someone has OU they should know why it works. How many people know how or why a solar panel works? They can have it and know that it is OU.

Then you claim to know all things and everything that has been said or done about OU. Whose ego is inflated here?

It would appear that Rick has dug himself into a hole and is
trying desperately to defend his hole with rash accusations.
It's behavior we see time and time again with those who
claim to have found real overunity.
Matt Jones, Dave Bowlin and now Rick Freidrich are singing
the same refrain which goes something like this:
"My science is good, it's all of those who question
my claims who haven't the ability to see the greatness
of what I've accomplished!!  They're bad people who are
against Real Science and who are determined to prevent
the path to overunity being realized by anybody!!"
If those who are making their premature claims of overunity
would meticulously abide by the Scientific Method in establishing
their "proofs," without letting their egos get in the way, they'd
surely see the folly of what they are doing.
Or, perhaps not.  Those who are deceived often resort to
hostile ugliness to defend their error.
When and if Real Overunity or Free Energy in any electrical
circuit or device
is actually discovered, the phenomenon
should speak for itself in Truth.  The Overunity should be
foolproof rather than capricious;  always available rather
than sometimes it happens but usually not.
Those who claim to have found Overunity should be able
to show what its source is, how it is being harvested and
why it works.  So far, this has not been done conclusively
with any claim anywhere.  Apart from the obvious exceptions
of course, such as wind, solar, and water power.
While the free energy able to be made manifest by Daniel
Pomerleau is indeed real, it cannot be explained by Science
as we presently limit it.  It is energy that comes from a place
we are reluctant to consider.  It is being exploited, however,
in Secret Programs with the assistance of certain entities
whose existence is generally denied.
Disclosure is coming but not yet.  One day we will all know.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 15, 2019, 03:00:15 AM
Sea Monkey;  You come out of nowhere to attack Rick..
This forced me to read some of your posts.


I would suggest others to do the same.


It is plainly obvious that your knowledge of this subject is lacking and you completely
misunderstand Tesla.
Rick bases his technology on proven patents by Carlos Benitez.
Joining the herd and making baseless accusations may make you feel like you have friends.


Go and look at Benitez's patents and do a critique on them  and tell us where they are
wrong. Then I will take your posts seriously. Up to now your post is a waste of 20 minutes
of my time I'll never get back.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 15, 2019, 03:36:41 AM
Perhaps from your perspective it may seem to be an
"attack" but what I've done is focus on behaviors
which can be modified or corrected.

There is certainly nothing wrong with what Rick is
striving to accomplish.  His kits may indeed help
those who are curious to become better acquainted
with the science of electricity and electronics.

Hopefully, those who pursue Overunity or Free Energy
will become intimately aware of the Scientific Method
which strives to find TRUTH and let go of any thoughts
of deceiving the masses for either fun or profit.

Does anyone find it rather strange that those who
are most vocal about having found Overunity or Free
Energy is that they seem to have these things in common:
they're relatively new to the science of electricity and
electronics and are not particularly good at accurate
measurement techniques and not particularly good at
explaining what they believe they have "discovered"
and why it seems to manifest "Free Energy."

The Scientific Method demands that until such time
as replication with instrumented proof of measurement
we should all be skeptical as we seek to comprehend.
We should also be particularly careful to not make any
claims prematurely or in error.

Sadly, most who we see proclaiming that they've found
the secret to Free Energy or Overunity are doing so
very prematurely or with the intent to deceive for either
fun or profit.

Why does it seem that honesty and integrity are
lost in the process for too many proclaimers?

Quote from: A.King.21
It is plainly obvious that your knowledge of this subject
is lacking and you completely misunderstand Tesla.

 :o ;) ::)

I see that you've apparently fallen into that hole too.

As with all things under the sun;  time will tell. 8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Mannix on August 15, 2019, 04:00:47 AM
It would appear that Rick has dug himself into a hole and is
trying desperately to defend his hole with rash accusations.

It's behavior we see time and time again with those who
claim to have found real overunity.

Matt Jones, Dave Bowlin and now Rick Freidrich are singing
the same refrain which goes something like this:

"My science is good, it's all of those who question
my claims who haven't the ability to see the greatness
of what I've accomplished!!  They're bad people who are
against Real Science and who are determined to prevent
the path to overunity being realized by anybody!!"

If those who are making their premature claims of overunity
would meticulously abide by the Scientific Method in establishing
their "proofs," without letting their egos get in the way, they'd
surely see the folly of what they are doing.

Or, perhaps not.  Those who are deceived often resort to
hostile ugliness to defend their error.

When and if Real Overunity or Free Energy in any electrical
circuit or device
is actually discovered, the phenomenon
should speak for itself in Truth.  The Overunity should be
foolproof rather than capricious;  always available rather
than sometimes it happens but usually not.

Those who claim to have found Overunity should be able
to show what its source is, how it is being harvested and
why it works.  So far, this has not been done conclusively
with any claim anywhere.  Apart from the obvious exceptions
of course, such as wind, solar, and water power.

While the free energy able to be made manifest by Daniel
Pomerleau is indeed real, it cannot be explained by Science
as we presently limit it.  It is energy that comes from a place
we are reluctant to consider.  It is being exploited, however,
in Secret Programs with the assistance of certain entities
whose existence is generally denied.

Disclosure is coming but not yet.  One day we will all know.


It has been my life experience that this condition existed for many of the seemingly real ones.
It may be that the individuals with this "afliction" cant see it in themselves or lack the ability to scrutinise their own work.

Our child hoods are filled with imaginary figures and many we bring with us .

What is real to one person may be in conceivable to another ,it is a diverse tapestry of ideas and science has more to explain than has been explained, but we are getting there.

The conflict is in the question of why would one make such a claim?

Phsycology?  May take a little more time .
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: a.king21 on August 15, 2019, 04:32:21 AM
Mannix and Sea Monkey.  If you go back and read my early posts you will see that I have been promoting Carlos Benitez   many, many years ago.  I have been entirely consistent.  When I realized that Rick was talking the same language and had based his devices on Benitez I recognized the truth.  So I repeat:   Prove Carlos Benitez wrong.  Show me your experiments.


Rick does not have to prove out Benitez.  Right is on his side.  You have to disprove Benitez.


Be my guest.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 15, 2019, 05:19:35 AM
Quote from: A.King.21
Rick bases his technology on proven patents by Carlos Benitez.

I've studied Benitez and Tesla.  They both have made premature
claims without sufficient comprehension of what they had
observed.  This was also true (erroneous claims) of many other
researchers from years ago.  Time will always tell.

You may not get your 20 minutes back but you'll be wiser for
having expended the time.  Over time as we acquire more and
more understanding our opinions change.  Yours will too.

As of this year 2019 there has not been a single soul in all of
humanity who has developed any electrical or electronic device
which will produce a sustained power output greater than its
input power requirement.

Daniel Pomerleau has been given access to a source of Free
Energy which is the same source accessed by the Secret
Programs.  Looking for Overunity or Free Energy in electric
and electronic devices is not where it is.  It is possible to
recover "wasted" energy in such devices by making them
more efficient by minimizing losses and much effort is devoted
to that pursuit.  Overunity it is not.

Think Alien Encounters.  Then you'll be close to the target.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: gotoluc on August 15, 2019, 05:30:00 AM
Luc,

It would be good to read first what exactly Rick means on a COP > 1 performance, for instance ? How he defines COP.  He mentions work done which sounds good for a start...

Gyula


No problem Gyula, I've unsubscribed from this topic.
Please notify me when the information is satisfactory.


@SeaMonkey, spot on. Wish I had your writing skills
@Mannix, the years you've been here deserves respect

@a.king.21, you're protecting beliefs, not facts
@seychelles, maybe I shouldn't say anything, can't be easy to be stuck on a tinny Island in the middle of the sea

Kind regards :)
Luc
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seychelles on August 15, 2019, 06:21:19 AM
YOU ARE RIGHT LUCKY LUKE. I MADE FIRE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJvosb4UCLs
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 15, 2019, 08:05:01 AM
I didn't just mention work done for a start, there has been much detail given already.

It is rather important to carefully define such ideas. The full idea will depend upon what you come into this with. Most people want to look at circuits as if they are completely closed to the environment. They oversimplify matters for convenience and because they think usually environmental influences or things influenced in the local environment are minimal. I have mentioned several times now that at least everyone acknowledges thermal and altitude influences. So there is no closed system ever. With that said, COP is more than just the basic statement of: "Ratio of the usable energy output of a system divided by that portion of the total energy input that is input by the operator." You can also consider this with average output and input. Now there is more to consider when you realize that usable energy output is relative to what you know about energy dynamics. This is why as a philosopher I am not insistent upon keywords that are often defined differently or over simplistically. It takes time to understand what people exactly mean by keywords.

For example, if we have a fan that is 94% efficient and we only assume mechanical work to be possible with that fan under the circumstances, then we will only get a limited result. But what if we move around a diode and reduce that input energy while also producing an additional electrical output? More usable energy output manifests with less operator input. Now what if Heaviside was right and there was also more potential energy still (beyond the Poynting diverged energy) that could be used from this primary loop process? In both cases you would have made changes so technically speaking the basic definitions still holds with only the parts normally used and positioned. You have to 1. place a sail in the air to catch the wind, or 2. a battery in a Loving Path to benefit from the unused potential. (2.) The solar panel placed in a dark room or without a load represents the fan's coils' negative phase without the Loving Path extra loop with battery in series. (1.) The Heavi wind moves the Poynting boat a little along its current path, and when a capacitor sail is properly positioned the boat moves faster. And when the captain tells his crew that he will share the spoils the men row in battery faster still towards the free treasures. ;)

I cannot stress enough the total environmental causes and effects and topological considerations upon all electrical systems, especially with nonlinear systems with reactive elements. What you go into this with is what you will come out with. Methodology is everything. We can have several outputs at once if we know what collectors to use and how to properly transduce or process such. This can be shuttled around to reduce or eliminate the operator's input while producing other useful work as well.

Luc,
It would be good to read first what exactly Rick means on a COP > 1 performance, for instance ? How he defines COP.  He mentions work done which sounds good for a start...
Gyula
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 15, 2019, 08:36:12 AM
Nice try Monkey,
While there certainly are many who are mistaken about free energy due to ignorance it is not true that all are ignorant about electronics or metering that say they have OU when they don't. There are/were a good number of people who were fully trained and decided to take advantage of people through deception. That is like organized or trained criminals.

You assume I am mistaken or ignorant or deceiving others. I am neither of these and I have been doing electrical things since I was a child. So far you are wrong in all of your insults. You say not good and explaining but you haven't bothered to pay attention to the words. You think you are cleaver with your words but the fact that you have to resort to sophistry shows that that is the only card you have.

What you think is prematurely claimed is not the standard of what is true unless you think you have a monopoly on truth. This has been the prevailing attitude by so many people here. Their experience has been the standard of what is possible. That is immature. Just because others have not experienced something doesn't mean a person can't make a claim. Someone witnesses a murder, is that any less true because others didn't witness it? Someone moves a diode and adds a battery as an additional load. Just because no one has done that before doesn't mean that it is not to be mentioned.

"Sadly, most who we see [here] proclaiming that they've found the secret to Free Energy or Overunity  [to be impossible] are doing so very prematurely or with the intent to deceive for either fun or profit."

Your sophistry speaks volumes about you and your friends.

Perhaps from your perspective it may seem to be an
"attack" but what I've done is focus on behaviors
which can be modified or corrected.

There is certainly nothing wrong with what Rick is
striving to accomplish.  His kits may indeed help
those who are curious to become better acquainted
with the science of electricity and electronics.

Hopefully, those who pursue Overunity or Free Energy
will become intimately aware of the Scientific Method
which strives to find TRUTH and let go of any thoughts
of deceiving the masses for either fun or profit.

Does anyone find it rather strange that those who
are most vocal about having found Overunity or Free
Energy is that they seem to have these things in common:
they're relatively new to the science of electricity and
electronics and are not particularly good at accurate
measurement techniques and not particularly good at
explaining what they believe they have "discovered"
and why it seems to manifest "Free Energy."

The Scientific Method demands that until such time
as replication with instrumented proof of measurement
we should all be skeptical as we seek to comprehend.
We should also be particularly careful to not make any
claims prematurely or in error.

Sadly, most who we see proclaiming that they've found
the secret to Free Energy or Overunity are doing so
very prematurely or with the intent to deceive for either
fun or profit.

Why does it seem that honesty and integrity are
lost in the process for too many proclaimers?

 :o ;) ::)

I see that you've apparently fallen into that hole too.

As with all things under the sun;  time will tell. 8)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 15, 2019, 08:51:29 AM
That's all easy to say but you are wrong in reference to electrical claims that he demonstrated. His processes have long been used by many people over the last 100+ years. Your ignorance of that doesn't change this.

Again, you claim to be a god to know everything that has been done with all humanity. That is a real joke. The fact is that solar, wind and hydro do just that. There is no operator input. Once upon a time people like you would have said that about solar. There also cosmic energy transducers and several other conventional free energy systems. In your haste to attack you overstated your ignorant claim. There are in fact many electrical systems that require no operator input.

Yeah, aliens. That's about all we get from such words.

I've studied Benitez and Tesla.  They both have made premature
claims without sufficient comprehension of what they had
observed.  This was also true (erroneous claims) of many other
researchers from years ago.  Time will always tell.

You may not get your 20 minutes back but you'll be wiser for
having expended the time.  Over time as we acquire more and
more understanding our opinions change.  Yours will too.

As of this year 2019 there has not been a single soul in all of
humanity who has developed any electrical or electronic device
which will produce a sustained power output greater than its
input power requirement.

Daniel Pomerleau has been given access to a source of Free
Energy which is the same source accessed by the Secret
Programs.  Looking for Overunity or Free Energy in electric
and electronic devices is not where it is.  It is possible to
recover "wasted" energy in such devices by making them
more efficient by minimizing losses and much effort is devoted
to that pursuit.  Overunity it is not.

Think Alien Encounters.  Then you'll be close to the target.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 15, 2019, 09:16:09 AM
Rick,

It appears that you're suffering mightily from some sort
of emotional sting and have lost what should be an
objective outlook. :'(

Your responses are the typical, highly emotionally charged
denials of all who have gone before you.  Many words
conveying emotional hurt without anything scientifically
substantive to support your position. ???

It is only a temporary dilemma.  Time heals all wounds. ;)

By the way, what are your thoughts on the  Scientific Method? ???

Do you scrupulously utilize the Scientific Method in your
research efforts and allow it to guide you as you make
proclamation? :P

There is reason to wonder. ::)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: rickfriedrich on August 15, 2019, 10:12:21 AM
What's with all the psychological games here? Just a big red herring again.

Rick,

It appears that you're suffering mightily from some sort
of emotional sting and have lost what should be an
objective outlook. :'(

Your responses are the typical, highly emotionally charged
denials of all who have gone before you.  Many words
conveying emotional hurt without anything scientifically
substantive to support your position. ???

It is only a temporary dilemma.  Time heals all wounds. ;)

By the way, what are your thoughts on the  Scientific Method? ???

Do you scrupulously utilize the Scientific Method in your
research efforts and allow it to guide you as you make
proclamation? :P

There is reason to wonder. ::)
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 16, 2019, 12:02:46 AM
Quote from: Question from Rick Friedrich
What's with all the psychological games here? Just a big red herring again.

It's simply a test Rick.  You've never been probed before? :o

There is reason to wonder. ::)

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: seaad on August 16, 2019, 12:59:45 AM
Maybe something to test here at confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims:

Quote
  Aetherholic posted this 08 October 2018
So trolls and "debunkers" have a use after all!!!!.

One thing I would like to report at this stage is that my part G core as built is overunity without any feedback. The COP is between 1.2 and 2.33 depending upon load conditions. If anyone wants to debunk that then build one for yourself. It took great effort to build it so the same effort is required to debunk it. In operation its characteristics are a rectifier+magamp+battery+AC modulator+amplifier.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Quote
  http://www.aboveunity.com/thread/clemente-figuera/?order=all#comment-113491cc-bb60-469a-9725-a88f0122b9ec

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipP4nEyQHK1jTTNgpmOkkh5Oche8_8l7dvCAsBxWJQnPEx5QtSjdBVqdaFxbmOLz1w/photo/AF1QipOUUp9VujY2WsadgHKz8cv5yv3APWNLr3yCDKpC?key=YnZuaGFWekI2TlIyaURpSUpmZ25GTk1EWFQ4VHJ3

Arne
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Mannix on August 16, 2019, 02:52:23 AM
Yes there are many very interesting devices .

 Its probably time to examine the fan and it use in evaluating work done .
Most fans especially ducted types and more specifically dc types are of brushless design and are fixed speed devices which, when loaded by a long duct will load up and draw more current .
Using them in free air with an anemometer held by hand is fraught with issues as in an unloaded condition the speed will be the same as will the airflow .
When one captures the excess when unloaded they are effectively reducing the ability of the fan to do work as in a long duct rather than in free air.
It would be different if the fan was a free running dc motor which was supplied say 10v when 20v would have it running much faster in unloaded condition.
It is hard to imasgine a well versed, articulate, educated ,well equiped researcher would not be aware of the nature of brushless dc fans .


The same test with the fan attached to a 20ft duct would be more revealing provided the anenometer was fixed.
 
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on August 19, 2019, 03:32:44 AM

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. :)
Void,

Have a look again at this circuit:
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/ac_theory/images/Protection-Diode.gif (http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/ac_theory/images/Protection-Diode.gif)


For sure the voltage at the coil  did change, otherwise the diode can not conduct and supress the BEMF voltage pulse !
I guess you mixed something up.
The current through the coil does not change direction, it is just flowing into the same direction, but now through the diode, when the transistoris switched off...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: AlienGrey on August 20, 2019, 01:25:22 AM
Void,

Have a look again at this circuit:
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/ac_theory/images/Protection-Diode.gif (http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/ac_theory/images/Protection-Diode.gif)


For sure the voltage at the coil did change, otherwise, the diode can not conduct and suppress the BEMF voltage pulse!
I guess you mixed something up.
The current through the coil does not change direction, it is just flowing into the same direction, but now through the diode, when the transistoris switched off...

Regards, Stefan.
Stefan please don't be offended here but if that is true why is the flyback diode the other way round?  ;D
t's a nice try but for it to be any use you need  to stop the BEMF going back into the coil winding as it would keep ringing until exhausted and is all you can do with that energy is pump it back into the supply where it came from but because of its polarity it was generated with will always be less than it's supply.
But if you wanted OU BEMF you wouldn't do it like that.

However as with a relay coil or motor usually that doesn't matter.

PS for what the been done to OU you might as well erase my log in as it's utterly useless value now. bye!

Regards AG
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: popolibero on August 22, 2019, 08:19:23 AM
Hi Rick,


is your new website already up?


Mario
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: mrzlica on August 22, 2019, 08:38:44 AM
Hi,


for all the sceptics, here is your chance:


http://www.r-charge.net/Oct-25-26-2019-Elkhart-Indiana-Resonance-Engineering-Convention-Workshop_p_333.html (http://www.r-charge.net/Oct-25-26-2019-Elkhart-Indiana-Resonance-Engineering-Convention-Workshop_p_333.html)


br
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: hartiberlin on September 07, 2019, 01:13:36 AM
Stefan please don't be offended here but if that is true why is the flyback diode the other way round?  ;D

http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/ac_theory/images/Protection-Diode.gif
This is the only around the diode works, otherwise if the polarity would be the other way around of the diode,the flyback diode would conduct the current instead of going through the coil...
So this is the only way it works and it shows that the voltage is reversing, so then the diode is conductingand cancels the high voltage away on the coil and the current in the coil does not reverse...
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: Raycathode on September 07, 2019, 08:02:37 AM
Stefan please don't be offended here but if that is true why is the flyback diode the other way round?  ;D
t's a nice try but for it to be any use you need  to stop the BEMF going back into the coil winding as it would keep ringing until exhausted and is all you can do with that energy is pump it back into the supply where it came from but because of its polarity it was generated with will always be less than it's supply.
But if you wanted OU BEMF you wouldn't do it like that.

However as with a relay coil or motor usually that doesn't matter.

PS for what the been done to OU you might as well erase my log in as it's utterly useless value now. bye!

Regards AG
Amazing! This post was dated the 19th and 20th of August How come it has taken till now the 7th of September to appear?

I haven't seen this post appear prior to days date and AG sounds really PISSED off to say the leased  ;D ;D so one must ask when will the great 2019 moderation war end Chet refers to in ((((
Offline ramset

    Hero Member
    *****

Re: Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY
« Reply #21647 on: September 06, 2019, 08:09:44 PM »

    Quote

we have a lot less peeps here since the "RF" situation ......the great moderation's of 2019 ,have left a Void.[ a big empty space here where builders use to be.

Chet K )))))

Anyway, you are both appear to be talking about different things one about protecting the transistor and the other about making use of the flyback pulse.

PS Stefan is right and as an afterthought your collecting a positive impulse according to JB you always end up with less than what was originally used so no gain here and since this is an OU forum a far different approach would be required to my way of thinking.

Raymondo
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: mrzlica on November 01, 2019, 07:59:03 PM
Hi,


did anybody visit Ricks meeting? Is the kit working...
Lots of people from this forum claim it that is all fake.
Maybe somebody was there and can give us a quick briefing, is
it worthwhile?


br
Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: ramset on November 01, 2019, 08:56:31 PM
Wellthis is a very touchy subject here ,and as of this writing ...it seems its still all a big secret ?

as nobody I am aware of can reproduce OU results [or share them]?
One open source inventor in particular spent 3 months trying to no avail... and if he had a sniff of success
there would have been resources spent towards this Indiana show .

would be good if any persons [AKing21 ??} could share something with a happy result ?or is Open sourcing forbidden ?
measuring too ?
to be honest one member did ask ,and he was making some suggestions as to why there was failure here ,i was not understanding his Direction but it went back to Anslie and a wrong turn ?? [her COP 17 claim] something about magnetic ??

I will call him back for more explanation and perhaps a fresh look ...and maybe Stefan can ask his friend if he had success with RF claim he was building.

Title: Re: Confirmation of OU devices and claims
Post by: carbon sugar on December 19, 2019, 02:34:21 PM
Hola chicos, yo soy nuevo por aquí y no pretendo generar polémica ni nada por el estilo, tengo varios experimentos realizados y les puedo asegurar que la energía libre existe, energía libre porque somos dueños de esa energía, dueños y no dueños, si somos dueños no seria libre je, he cargado baterías con back emf, usado motores durante meses sin que se descarguen las baterías, he cargado celulares, baterías y computadoras con mi bobina POE vortex, meti mi bobina POE vortex en un cloud buster (maquina de lluvia) y después de tres días de meterle frecuencia, salieron flotando 7 u 8 bolas de plasma de mi jardín, a unos pocos metros de mi cabeza, 3 metros de distancia, es como decir que la tierra donde vivimos no es libre, que no es nuestra, es tan nuestra como no lo es, tenemos responsabilidad de las cosas, que el sistema durante años, cientos de años se adueña de todo, eso es otra cosa, el sistema no nos hace libres, por eso nuestro pensamiento de las cosas, los artefactos se desgastan y eso produce que no puedan usarse infinitamente, si hay finito, hay infinito, vengo estudiando medicina china, nutrición naturista, educación física, tecnología, agricultura, de todo, y ahora electrónica, he visto mucho, y también he tenido experiencias de todo tipo, vivimos en un océano de frecuencias, vivimos en un campo magnético, ese campo magnético es lo estático (seria la cancha de fútbol), a partir de ese campo magnético comienza el flujo de energía radiante, esa es la parte dinámica (serian los jugadores de fútbol), siempre va a estar un polo y el otro, para que se junten en un equilibrio, ese equilibrio es el máximo punto de energía, eso es lo verde, la naturaleza, tenemos que romper nuestras estructuras mentales, liberar los pensamientos, o empezar por ahí, podría seguir contando muchas mas experiencias pero el mensaje se vuelve aburrido, es hora de empezar a dar el conocimiento, darlo sin costo, abrazo para todos