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 improv