Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

Mario,
This is the second part of my reply here. See my last reply to point 5 that I did miss.
It is true that people from those early days do need clarification. I have done this repeatedly in recent years with the SSG Mysteries revealed or solved video for example. But I have also explained these things during those early years. People tend to gloss over details, and this is somewhat involved to explain. But Bedini also created confusion on the subject at times. See my posting earlier today for details about these processes and Bedini's chaos.
1. You have not proven anything here and you gloss over this as if I have said something wrong. The buck boost circuit only confirms my point. It may not be new to you but you have not appreciated it at all it appears. What's the big deal you say? Well for one, if you make the L1 inductor a motor then you can power a real load in addition to the output load as I have mentioned with the fan kit or any of my motors. This is huge thing because people are not using the full potential of the circuit and all of the calculations you people make about the efficiency of the circuit exclude the full potential starting with this point. So if I run a motor, which I have done thousands of these for 15 years now, with this circuit then all of the energy produced from that motor would have to be considered as part of the Kirchhoff loop around the primary loop of the circuit. The work done in the motor across the inductor and fet will add up to the input energy right? So then the back end load is in addition to that. You see how all this has passed over you and everyone for many years? I don't easily disregard the potentials in circuits. In fact I teach people how to tape various dipoles (as my teacher Don Smith taught me) in their existing appliances without interrupting the normal operation of them. So here is the hypocrisy so to speak: when that circuit is a motor mainstream people will not add the boost part and instead will put a flyback snubber system in place to insure under unity. They will calculate everything so that Kirchhoff is paid royalties in his grave and everything is equal in and out. The L1 motor is the load and everything is fine. But when we do the boost we do not bother do add the motor because that would be two outputs. Anyway, the boost circuits do not disprove anything that I am saying and only support this. However, they are not the same thing exactly as you assume. The same thing applies however, that the rate of change will affect the output as well.
But the first point to admit is that if everyone calculates the maximum efficiency and energy by the combined loops and they make their conclusions, then what happens when we make L1 a motor? The total output doubles now and your calculations are all mistaken. This is exactly the point of my fan kit demonstration. I take a fan the draws so much power to produce so much CFMs. Now I move around two diodes and charge a second battery while the power input and CFMS are the same. Oops! I just proved a non-conservative example. I just doubled the output from the input. Oh boy, billions of fans have been made that way and manufacturers have ignored that (minus the thousands that people have converted over because of me) and have told you the COP of these fans. So you have to begin at this point in the Loving paths first stage process understanding. You guys refuse to admit these long demonstrated facts. It is actually old news on these forums. Some of you from the early days know better and refuse to admit what you know to be true. Again, if the current flow through L1 and the fet back to battery in the motor circuit adds up to unity in a motor circuit, and everyone admits that while using a flyback diode to ignore any potential gains that could be had there, then my point is proven that any additional gains in a buck boost system are above those in the primary loop. Again, people don't do a buck boost motor system as I do because of what it demonstrates. So instead of this disproving what I am saying, you only opened up the door to the fact it could be a gain system if you made L1 a motor coil. And this is exactly the same point I make about the Resonance kit where the L1 in a tank circuit could always be more than just a part of a filter circuit, but could be a transmitter (well is one actually) and part of a motor and more (if you let it be). And the capacitor could be a Stan M fuel cell with electrical output as well. It is just you guys are deliberately not creative here because you do not understand these processes in existing technology. You are reductionistic while oversimplifying things so that everything always supports the idolatrous religion of lower than unity, false conservation claims. Again, add up the current with your power meters and see for yourself. What does it take to power a motor on the primary side of the circuit with or without the boost side? Everyone is satisfied with the measurements without the boost side. Yet, that is given a rating and everything lines up with the dogma religion of mainstream theory. Now open up the boost side and your math is enlarged. Oops, you can't show that motor Rick. It can only be a boost inverter. Here comes the power police to say you are not allowed to do mechanical work as well.

You are going to have to pay attention to what I actually say and not gloss over what I say as you did with Tesla, and make it to be something else. What I am saying is that the negative energy is not a flow of current into the negative resistor (even though current can flow out of that battery after the event). Did you read that? Can you admit that I wrote this again? You may not agree with that or understand it, but that is what I said. The energy converges into the battery not as a result of electron flow from the coil. If that was the case then you would have calculated OU because (if you learned anything from the Walter Lewin demonstration) all the current flow is in the forward direction from the inductor through the fet back to the source battery. And if I am running the fan while charging up a battery at the rate of discharging the primary battery then I would have double the output. So this discharging of the coil is really not part of the current loop in what we are doing. With the boost circuit however, the loop is NOT in a floating ground configuration but back to the same loop and battery negative terminal that is a significant difference and produces a different affect. That is another subject to consider. You have to think in terms of source charges. The battery is the source charge, and when you create a loop it will discharge itself at the rate of the load. The inductor is a load and then becomes a source charge as well under a pulse condition. You pay for the charging of it, and the discharging of it becomes an additional gain if you let it. Your gains will depend on what you do. And there is a significant difference with a buck boost and the motor circuits we do. Of course you have to experience these things to know. However, as mentioned above, no one wants to make the inductor a motor but me, while making a boost system. This is very revealing. Anyway, the inductor is now a source charge and you can make a loop around it in various ways and benefit from that if you want to. But if you limited yourself to merely the electrical side or merely the mechanical side of things then that is your fault. BUT DON"T SAY WE ARE LIMITED TO ONE OR THE OTHER WHEN WE CAN DO BOTH!!

You misrepresent what I said about one battery charging another. You cannot charge a battery in series with another battery from the first battery. The primary battery is not charging the second battery. The inductor is the source charge, not the first battery. You can only charge another battery from a primary battery in parallel. And buck boots do not have the load in series with the primary like we do.
Also, any current measurements on the secondary side (loop) will be OU, but are not current actually. You can deflect a compass in different ways and we can cover that later if we need to. But any power measurements will not add up as to what is measured going into the battery and what is measured coming out of it. At best it shows the meters reveal OU of output. At worst they show you they are useless to use in the middle of the circuit as mentioned yesterday. So I already covered this yesterday. In the end you guys don't want to measure the final output and notice all the work being done, even as no one makes the buck boost a motor at the same time. Use your meter and admit all the work that can be done. So I made a motor drive a 26' boat with a buck books type circuit for three years rotating batteries around. That can't be anything important to you guys. Where were you when I gave the rides? You were stuck on making power measurements going into the batteries. Or spreading tails about that being a chemical consumable process. Well I'm still around and some boats have traveled around the world doing the same thing...
Anyway, you have to change your theory and use your meters properly. You guys just don't understand what you are doing and keep assuming reductionistically, and reducing things to some aspect or thinking 2D rather than 3D. Live a little and open your mind!

You are making a lot of assumptions with your scope understanding. What is your scope loop anyway? It is it's own loop. It is only an attempt to represent what is happening in the real world. It is only trying to give this indication and showing THE RESULTS of the effects. You see the probes loop responding to the action, but it is not the action itself. These are not the same things. Turning on the switch at the start, or turning on the switch (when you turn off the fet) at the end, both create an action event where something very important happens. You all want to look at the scope to see the results of that action as if the results are everything. But it is the switch itself that is what is important. That is the inpulse, not the resulting oscillations. You think the impulse is merely the tail result, but it is not. This is a category fallacy. And you make it because you are limited in your understanding of things by boiling everything down to power measurements. But if I have not power measurements while I have real loads running, then what? Indeed, we have let people put their meters on demonstrations and have them be amazed. Even one German guy stormed out of the room in a fit in Hamburg. It cannot be! But it is. Deal with it.

So again, I ask, are you guys here to insist that everything boils down to "power" measurements? None of you wants to admit this. You guys refuse to address this fundamental point I have repeated over and over again. Ignore it in hopes no one notices. You are saying that OU if actually impossible because you insist that meters that show only the rate of wasting the energy can only be used to verify OU. But in that case you can never prove OU. Well, unless you do what you all refuse to do, and that is use the meters at the end loads being driven rather than in the middle. Who made the power meter such an authority?

Your statements about going from 12 to 48V ignore what I said the other day about producing over 200 times the output when I did that while not only going from 12 to 48V, but also from 12AH to 2000AH. So obviously this is NOT a matter of current. Again, I don't do mathematical or meter tricks. I do real loads in the real world, over time, and repeatedly over years. And so do thousands of my customers. If this was just a current transformation as you suggest, then what could I have possibly done to 48V of 2000AH batteries with the tiny 3 pole monopole kit? Why did I get almost 250 times the output or difference over using a 12V 12AH battery? If I limited myself to what you and G say then I would never have even tried that. Why bother, it wouldn't even do anything as the amps would be distributed and scattered. BUT NO!! These batteries are all negative resistors and the energy converges into them rather than dissipates as you assume. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I have been saying, and have no experience in these matters. If you have done experiments then you have blinded yourself from noticing these things. This is not new. I have been saying all this for years and when the skeptics actually did what I said they came back with WOW! you were right. I can't believe it. Some just changed the game and demanded more.

See you use negative in a different way. I'm not even referring to the scope when I talk about negative. It means opposite to positive or current. Not below the line. Sure, when a battery is charging it is a true negative resistor going below the zero to do that. But I am focused on the opposite phenomena rather than what is happening in reference to voltages above or below zero line.

2. No, negative charging does not damage the batteries. See last post for details. The only reason people think that is that they do not understand that once a battery has been negatively charged, depending on how much, it will take as much time to reverse that so that you can positively charge it again. It is fascinating to watch. It just doesn't take a charge and suddenly it does. So you have the battery negatively charging for a month and then you go to charge it with current and it can sit there just as long. And people who didn't bother to listen or just didn't know what they were doing with these things, would think it was damaged.
However, I will add that people damage their batteries in many ways and don't want to admit that. Then they blame some process for their wild treatment. This I see everywhere as almost everyone is sloppy. So you can abuse your batteries while attempting to negatively charge them. You can be very mistaken in that. So I can't help someone if I can't be there to see what they are doing. And believe me, I have visited more than one "professional" "expert" only to find so many things done wrong. The assumption on these forums is that everyone making a claims actually does everything perfectly or actually discloses every detail of what they are doing. I live in the real world and visit such people and find that not to be the case in almost 100% of the time. This is why you can see my focus on overcoming the bias assumptions practice. But this is something you guys keep assuming about any negative claim, that they have done everything they say they have or done it right. But when I come here and say or show something suddenly I'm assumed to be mistaken about something. This is a double standard I have fully exposed now.
As for what you should do, there is no answer to that. It depends on what you want to do. At this point you need to start over because you are fundamentally mistaken about several things. You need to deal with the things above here first or you will just blind yourself in whatever you do. All the different ways you ask about have their place. I do all of them for years now. Read what I wrote yesterday. I went to the cap dump because people really didn't want to do negative energy engineering. They wanted a battery rotator motor. However, you can still do the cap dump with the battery while doing this DVD7 third stage process before the cap dump.
Again, what I recommend is many things. To do the ideal is beyond you guys so I can't get into that while you are locked out of all OU considerations. You are still not at stage one level. This is not an insult but a fact. You are locked into power meter fallacies and reductionistic fallacies. This should be dealt with before you come and write on these forums. Because you don't even believe OU is possible. Why talk about how to charge batteries when you have no foundation for understanding the process? I don't find any of you acknowledging anything I say as you do with everyone else. This seems more than hostile to me, it seems you do not want to admit anything. No one even wants to admit that you can't prove anything over the forum. Why not? How come people?

3. See I can give credit to you guys even when you can't do that to me in anything. So I say, yes, you are moving in the right direction to use a negatively charged battery to be the input with doing something with a capacitor. It is a little more than that and some circuits were posted showing the proper way of doing that. But rotating batteries is so olden days to me that I don't bother with that for years when you can do the third stage process which can allow for the input battery to not discharge. Same with everyone trying to get A to power the gate driver input. That's find, but when you learn the 1/4W relationships you don't need to try and produce current and shuttle around current in the system. So again, there is the basic involved ways of doing things and the ideal ways (which require understanding of how things work, and precise measurements with resonance). Anyway, this point number 3 is about converting the negative to positive. If you play around enough you will figure out your answers. But unless you deal with your foundational problems you will always doubt your results. Start from the beginning and then the rest will flow properly and smoothly. Of course you can do what you want but you can't say you are doing what we are doing.

4. While the scope shows 1V more or less depending on the cap size, etc., you will find if you have a very expensive very high frequency scope and probes that the scope and probe are only giving you an approximation of the real world and are but measuring the assumed results. This is important when dealing with these things in the commercial real world. As you will blow out parts and not realize why. It is because things are not as assumed with impulsing. The spike can be much different and extremely high if you have the most expensive equipment. But if you only use 100mhz equipment then you are what you put into it. This is not a ramble but is significant.
Again, people talk as if there is one setup or one set of values. I shared some details already that you even quoted from. I said you want a low ESR cap with high voltage. The uf or pf depends on what you are wanting to do. This is the problem with the forums as people seek to throw some parts together to hope to produce some results instead of starting with a working system and learning from it. Anyway, I am not faulting you here for asking because that is a good thing. I'm merely saying that the values depend on what you want to do. Too high uf will ruin the batteries over time because it will be like hitting the concrete with a hammer and making hairline cracks in the plates that get bigger over time. Bedini never took any time to do loading himself so he never understood those things. I realized this early on.
So you want a voltage above the spike (yet the spike is much much higher than you think--depending on your scope and probes as mentioned). And the rest of the answer beyond low ESR is depending on the size of your system. You will learn this by experience.
Yes I have built everything people have shown on the forums and more in that regards. Even the neon bulbs have their place in some applications. My problem is that I can make these things do whatever I want so it isn't so much about finding the right parts but using any parts to do whatever I want. There is not one ideal system that needs to be focused on, there are endless ideal models that could be given. I no longer teach like everyone in fixating on one system. I teach in terms of themes so that you can see all of your options and move beyond certain specific parts. The key is quality parts. Then again, I don't want to give the impression that anyone ever has to do the ideal setup either. No one needs the idea as it is way more powerful than anyone needs, it is grid level stuff. Thus my focus is doing something rather than nothing. So the first thing you need to do is the basics. Actually understand stage 1 before trying to deal with the finer points. Obviously you will not listen to that, but I had to warn you anyway.

That should cover everything. As I can see, there is really nothing more to say but repeating myself. So let's see if anyone admits anything at all.

Hi Rick,
I appreciate your long reply to Hoppy, and I appreciate you trying to explain how things really were. But I would appreciate even more if you could be more precise technically, else the confusion will go on forever.
1. I am not writing the following to contradict what you say about negative energy, and I DO understand the negative spikes with a fast change rate and that they are a trigger for converging a different form of energy to batteries, and that lower impedance in both, batteries and output wires help things a lot. BUT, if you keep saying that a) there is no current on the output, and b) that you can't charge a battery that's at a higher voltage than the primary you are not being precise and this keeps confusing people. Any DC-DC converter relies on buck-boost coil collapse (flyback) technology to convert lower to higher or higher to lower voltage, so charging a battery from another battery at any voltage is really not a special feature. Now about the current on the output, if you connect the scope to the switching device you see the typical h wave of an SG or the wave of a solid state oscillator. What we see below the zero line is the coil being powered from the primary battery, immediately followed by the neg. spike we see on the positive side on the scope (because of how we connect the scope) which results from the coil being switched off but not wanting to invert its current flow, immediately followed by the current starting to flow from the resulting collapsing magnetic field of the coil. So, depending on what we connect to the output we will see an according discharge of current also. If we discharge into a 12V battery the current discharge pulse will be almost as wide in time and amplitude (on the scope) as the power pulse, depending on coil resistance, device efficiency, SG or solid state, etc... If we discharge into a 48V battery we will see a much narrower discharge puls after the spike, because the discharging coil automatically adapts to the load voltage and in this case gives higher voltage but less current. This is just to be precise. There definitely is the negative spike which triggers another event we end up finding in the battery, but to say there is NO current and a battery should not charge is not right in my view. The amount of current can vary a lot depending on load voltage, tuning, etc... but there is some.
2. I am not a person of many words, but I like clarity and precision. I couldn't find a straight answer to Hoppy's question whether negative charging damages batteries or not. Would you suggest charging directly or use cap discharge? Also, on the output, would you suggest putting the batteries in series rather than in parallel (even if the impedance would be higher in series)?
3. To rotate negatively charged batteries, why not simply put a big capacitor across the input, since it converts to positive and is what inverters have on the input which we can use?
4. You said you've used SCR cap discharge triggered by a 1n4007 diode, that would dump the cap at 1V above the battery right? What cap size did you use mostly and what aprox. rate? I know it depends on many things. Do you recommend dumping a cap with a neon triggered SCR dump at 90V? I've built probably 40 or 50 variations of circuits from HV small caps to low voltage big caps and everything in between, so I'm kind of curious among all the confusion that's around what you would finally suggest as the best cap dump voltage from your experience.
5. I suppose you missed my post 643?
thanks,
Mario

[rickfriedrich]

So can anyone find this supposed quote from Bedini? Otherwise then let's just say it was a mistake to say so. I mean, the guy spent many years saying just the opposite, so if no quote is produced in a clear context then the idea should not even be considered. In the end it doesn't matter what Bedini said now that it is clear to everyone that he was a liar unto the end.
As for your second point, merely saying you are not mistaken about charging doesn't really help anyone here. Again, what is in someone's head means nothing when the real world disproves it.

Rick,
Thanks for your reply on the spiking damage issue. I may have misunderstood but that was the nature of things back then amongst all the confusion.  However. I'm not confused and have not misunderstood how the secondary battery is getting charged by the energiser.

[rickfriedrich]

Mario,
You all can see that I treat A the same way as I do you. My response to you is according to your own words and also in the context of everything people like G have posted over the last week or so (and the whole history of this forum to some extent). I deal with thousands of people all over the world, so this isn't about what you wrote and what I replied to. I'm speaking to everyone here as people are reading and will read in the future. When you had pointed out the second (b) image and yet claimed this was not about impulsing, what was I to think. There is a pattern here with several people really pushing for mainstream theory here that makes OU impossible and denies the possibility of gains, and limits everyone to power meters. Also, none of you are willing to admit anything I have said. This is incredible. Out of all the things I have shared you guys find nothing to agree with or appreciate. So this comes across like you guys have an agenda, as clearly many people have on these forums. I am not new to this and have seen this right from the beginning of the internet in the 90s. Regular people don't do those things. They politely converse with give and take exchanges. But here I offer you guys so many points and you all know I have demonstrated many OU systems over the years, so why the silence? I guess this posting from you is the first acknowledgement of any point I have made so far from those of you who give all appearance of not believing OU to be possible, and/or being locked out from it by your assumptions.
Anyway, the relevant point for you to consider while you read Tesla, is as Dollard points out, that there really is 4 different types of energy in our circuit systems that we need to distinguish from each other and not confuse: AC, DC, Oscillatory, and Impulse. AC must be distinguished from Oscillatory energy, and DC is not Impulse as the use of the words "pulsed DC" confuses people. The assumptions are most relevant in relation to OU considerations. Again, DC is fundamentally different than impulse because YOU DON'T CONSIDER THE TURNING ON AND OFF OF DC WHEN YOU MEASURE DC. And Impulse is not what follows from the impulse. Impulse is the moment of the switch and the nature of what happens at the moment. Just like people are not what results from their actions. Again, when you measure DC you never bother to measure the turning on and off of the circuit, and how it effects the whole environment. So even DC is never just DC. There is always an impulse at the beginning and end. It is only those who want to oversimplify things that ignore such details. And that discussion brings everyone back to the true of what Walter Lewin demonstrated and pointed out.
And while AC and oscillatory energy are also similar they also need to be contrasted in these studies. These four things need to be separated into their own categories when studying Tesla, what I say, and in all OU studies. Glossing them together helps no one.

Rick,
thanks for explaining, but don't be so hard on me man!   I admit I need to study Tesla more in depth. I know in the "hairpin" circuit he used impulses, but in the True wireless lecture he also wrote oscillations, that's probably why I misunderstood, It certainly isn't my intention to mislead anyone. Ok, I will dive into new experiments with the info you just kindly shared.
thanks,
Mario

[AlienGrey]

Mario,
You all can see that I treat A the same way as I do you. My response to you is according to your own words and also in the context of everything people like G have posted over the last week or so (and the whole history of this forum to some extent). I deal with thousands of people all over the world, so this isn't about what you wrote and what I replied to. I'm speaking to everyone here as people are reading and will read in the future. When you had pointed out the second (b) image and yet claimed this was not about impulsing, what was I to think. There is a pattern here with several people really pushing for mainstream theory here that makes OU impossible and denies the possibility of gains, and limits everyone to power meters. Also, none of you are willing to admit anything I have said. This is incredible. Out of all the things I have shared you guys find nothing to agree with or appreciate. So this comes across like you guys have an agenda, as clearly many people have on these forums. I am not new to this and have seen this right from the beginning of the internet in the 90s. Regular people don't do those things. They politely converse with give and take exchanges. But here I offer you guys so many points and you all know I have demonstrated many OU systems over the years, so why the silence? I guess this posting from you is the first acknowledgement of any point I have made so far from those of you who give all appearance of not believing OU to be possible, and/or being locked out from it by your assumptions.
Anyway, the relevant point for you to consider while you read Tesla, is as Dollard points out, that there really is 4 different types of energy in our circuit systems that we need to distinguish from each other and not confuse: AC, DC, Oscillatory, and Impulse. AC must be distinguished from Oscillatory energy, and DC is not Impulse as the use of the words "pulsed DC" confuses people. The assumptions are most relevant in relation to OU considerations. Again, DC is fundamentally different than impulse because YOU DON'T CONSIDER THE TURNING ON AND OFF OF DC WHEN YOU MEASURE DC. And Impulse is not what follows from the impulse. Impulse is the moment of the switch and the nature of what happens at the moment. Just like people are not what results from their actions. Again, when you measure DC you never bother to measure the turning on and off of the circuit, and how it effects the whole environment. So even DC is never just DC. There is always an impulse at the beginning and end. It is only those who want to oversimplify things that ignore such details. And that discussion brings everyone back to the true of what Walter Lewin demonstrated and pointed out.
And while AC and oscillatory energy are also similar they also need to be contrasted in these studies. These four things need to be separated into their own categories when studying Tesla, what I say, and in all OU studies. Glossing them together helps no one.

Mr Rick Friedrich,can you fill us in on this device please 

re tinman link=topic=12736.msg480799#msg480799 date=1460730080]

http://energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc14/index.html

[popolibero]

Rick, holy shit slow down! I haven't been posting for a long time on this forum so please don't jump at me like this... Don't know what others here are up to, but you don't need to be on the defensive side and slap back at me as I'm surely not trying to insult you or not admit anything or acknowledge what you say. I accidentally checked the threads here and saw your post about DVD7 which is something that I had spent quite some time on years back because I was very interested in the one wire subject.
I think this time it's you who didn't read everything I wrote because I never said that I believe OU is impossible and that all I see or measure is about current, not at all! I believe in negative energy and that it converges to the loads and is different from our normal current. OK? Clear? I JUST said that after the negative event the coil also discharges some current, ok? That's it. There's no need to shout that I'm not admitting anything and that I may have an agenda... I perfectly know that the primary charges the coil which then becomes the source that charges the secondary, You may think I'm a complete beginner in building these circuits. I'm not, I've built them for the last 10 or more years, my circuits have rise/fall times of about 30 nanoseconds.
After the "big confusion" I quietly kept working on my own (and other projects) to figure things out by actually doing the experiments, but I never really had a chance to compare notes and ask someone with more experience in the SG matter the questions I asked you. Not everyone can invest as much time on this as you do. I'm not here to contradict you, I'm actually all ears, trying to learn more.


Mario