Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[AlienGrey]

AG,
I don't understand any of your points made here to A. Not one thing you say makes any sense here or even resembles the quote you give about grounding. All of Tesla's systems were grounded so what are you talking about?

What i'm saying is how will an earth connected to a sine wave change anything in or on a 'positive electricity' JB says that in countless videos the answer is it wont.
What I couldn't figure out was what is missing from 'negative electricity' ? ? ?

[AlienGrey]

Yes, that is a big discussion many have had over the years. You do not turn it off but gate it the right way to work for you. Or you tap the very high frequency. Or there are other things you can do. It is good to at least start thinking about these things. Once you properly understand what is going on you can design several different kinds of systems. There are many that have been made over hundreds of years...

Further discussion might well be interesting if Rick could explain to relieve my and possibly others confusion
on how a single impulse can be made from a bunch of pure sine waves that are in the RF region rather than the audio
spectrum as it appears to pose no problem, Why not ask the question if one doesn't ask one doesn't learn! if one does ask it's not liked 

[rickfriedrich]

These points are not actually true. I am not being picky but I will point out that:
1. The energy is NOT transferred as people assume. The transmitter does not send out energy that is absorbed into the receiver coils. That is why people wrongly assume that the totally amount of work that can be done is merely less than that transmitting from the transmitter. We don't have electrons coming from the transmitter and being consumed by the receiver coil(s). This is one of the purposes of the kit to realize that isn't the case. Several experiments help people to begin to see this (and this is why people can't evaluate the kit without the kit). However you understand the fluxing from the transmitter (as magnetic waves or capacitive coupling) this signal actually passes beyond the receiver coils which actually can become relay coils (even loaded ones). The primary transmitter's output radiation continues on beyond the receiver coils that are really not receivers of that energy technically speaking, but merely are influenced by this radiation that continues to bass beyond and can influence more distant coils in relation to the square of the distance from the transmitter. Now if the receiver coils merely absorbed the transmission (as can occur in other setups or under other conditions) then it would be true that we would not get the gains we actually get with these demonstrations.
This point shows you how important it is to consider every word people use because one mistake can change everything entirely.

2. The secondary coils, which can be relay coils, will also become transmitters themselves 90 degrees after they are influenced by the primary coil's radiation. Or in the case of other relay coil's radiation. So this is much different than is oversimplified in G's statement or in what is presented in mainstream teaching or with the MIT demonstration in 2007 on resonance inductive coupling. As usual, there is far more going on, and is a lot more involved than these hasty generalizations implied by the word "transferred". The electron spin theory gives the idea that when electrons are magnetically influence and therefore spun that they first give off electrical impulses (thus can power our electrical loads from an inductor) and then on their return spin the give off a magnetic impulse (and thus become a transmitter themselves). This is very important to understand as mainstream theory always disregards half of the actual energy produced. As mentioned, the motor as illustrated in the billions of brushless fans never uses the negative energy produced by the process but only uses the magnetic impulses from the supposed electron spin. And in the example of the buck boost circuit only the electrical impulses from the supposed electron spin are considered and used for a load. Only people like me use both outputs from supposed electron spin so that I use the magnetic and electric in real loads. No one seems to want to even comment about that either. This is the big dirty little secret the college texts keep from students and thus keep the world in ignorance. So in this case we are considering that the supposed receiver coils (which are not technically receivers in the literal sense as they are merely influenced by the radiation) are radiating magnetically 90 degrees after they flux electrically first. And with the transmitter the opposite is the case. When electrons are impulse electrically they first give off magnetic impulses and then 90 degrees later impulse electrically. This is what we do with the motors like the fans that are normally never used in that way (which done simply by moving one diode over and then charging a battery or powering a load without changing the rpm or input energy). These are fundamental considerations. Ignoring these facts will completely change and stunt your results. It leads to counterproductive phasing and poor results. I see no evidence, and manifest disbelief in these things on this thread. That is why I never expected this to go anywhere when people are blindly experimenting without proper understanding.

3. Now if coils can be influenced by radiation from another transmitter, they can also transmit to other coils (like a relay coil) and thus be it's own source charge power input. The local electrons are the source of energy supposedly (and the Aether as the ultimate source), not the original transmitter's electrons. No one supposes the Sun's electrons to travel through space and come to the earth as packets of energy to power solar panels or cause photosynthesis, etc. This is action at a distance merely influencing the local environments to power its own loads.  So even in these closer relationships we still have separate local environments. However, if you go too close as Itsu has done, you then make two or more coils part of the same setup. So in the nearfield you have rather complex relationships, and as you get closer and closer you have to deal with not just the magnetic but the capacitive coupling dynamics. So at best we are speaking in generalities here. The idea of the kit was to get experience with this. After a year of examining people still learn new things from it. But everyone learns that the mainstream oversimplifications made, like G tends to express, are obviously not the case. There is far more going on, even as there are always two types of energy from either magnetic or electrical impulsing. These people will never admit it even though the science is defined and called as electromagnetism  All they want to do is allow you to only focus on one output when both are available. Thus you pay for half of the energy.

4. So if the secondary coils can be receiver coils that influence other coils, then they can be used to influence the primary coil in the same way. So under the right conditions (phasing and position) you can at least reduce the input power of the primary. And just because someone like Itsu doesn't get the phasing right, or doesn't use variable capacitors to properly tune, does not mean this is not true. It is rather amazing how people prematurely conclude on such things when these basics are not even understood.

5. It has to be remembered that the influence from any transmitter falls under the square laws and therefore drops off at the square of the distance. The waves do not diminish but rather spread out at that rate. So they naturally have less influence upon a coil according to the distance. Ideally we do a Don Smith setup with the secondary within the primary so that all the flux passes through it (and you still have other coils being influenced as we do in the kit). If all the flux or radiation was as these mainstream people suppose in the secondary, like a iron core transformer would do, then no useful radiation would be left to influence other surrounding coils as we do in the kit. But the secondary not only receives all the influence of the primary magnetic fluxing but also each turn multiplies that total influence. This is the key and heart of the Don Smith system, that is also in a very important 1/4 wave relationship as well. But that is too much power to safely promote replication here when people are not even at the beginning of learning this stuff. That is why I don't add that to the kit yet.
Anyway, in order for the kit coils (that are not inside the primary like Don normally did, but which he did in his first model 2 in the book) to effectively power the input in the way mentioned, you have to consider the following. The square laws apply and so only a small portion of the total radiation of either transmitters (primary and secondaries which are out of phase with each other) are influencing each other. Again, all the radiation is not "transferred" as G states and as mainstream portrays it to be. It does not transfer the flux like and iron core transformer, but it goes out in almost all directions (like 70% of total area). It is often portrayed as merely going out of both open ends. But then it is portrayed as merely going to a receiving coil like in the MIT demonstration. Wikipedia then misleads you in their article to suggest that only one coil can receive the flux, etc.
Since only a small influence (angle) affects each other coil then the radiation may not be enough to completely supply each other's energy needs in order to maintain themselves in the way Kron talks about with the network and the transmission line, etc. That is no longer needing additional input. This is why it is easier to do this with additional coils.
You also have to realize that there is also proper phasing relationships. And this is difficult considering that we are dealing with very near field spacing that is way smaller than the even 1/4 wave lengths. We are in the 1Mhz frequencies, so go and look up for yourself how long that is. Again, the transmitter is influencing the secondary coils to become not only source charges themselves with electrical loads, but transmitters of magnetic waves 90 degrees out of phase. So in order to marry these various coils together in harmony you have to first realize this and then position accordingly. So we see here people just approaching all this randomly and therefore there is little hope that people will just stumble upon something. And if they do, they will not be able to quantify anything when they have no idea of why anything happened at all. At best there will just be perplexed faces and hands up in the air responses. Then people will want to immortalize some strange experience. Ah but it gets bumped and they can never get it back again! I have seen this for many years now. Trying to guess with parts and hope for magical results rather than start from the foundations and then make informed moves that always work out.

6. With 1/4 wave or harmonically matched coils we have another level of influence which is not the discussion here.

7. When we have sufficient influence from the primary transmitter (in the case of the regular Don Smith secondary L2 coil we have 100% x each secondary turn), and when we have the right phasing, then we can experience reduction of primary input, and possibly make that reduced to zero, or even go negative as Kron mentioned also. This can be called phase conjugate mirroring. It is not a mere or actual reflection, but a replication of the primary transmission properly speaking. If it was a mere reflection then you would have no additional gains but merely a self-sustaining useless process. This is how all these mainstream people suppose it would be so naturally they have no interest even considering these things. Because to them you only have losses anyway so it could not be even self-sustaining even if you had efficient mirroring. But we see in either resonance tank circuits clear amplifications of either voltage or amperage so they are foolish to ignore such common manifestations of energy gains. Then they have the nerve to draw attention to these tank circuits as if they disprove what they are actually showing  That is they say, well how can everyone be familiar with resonant tank circuits and not see this? Well I ask in the same way, how can they ignore have the radiation output with billions of brushless fans around the world for decades? And why do they never push a mechanical load with a pulsed inductor when they only want a electrical output? So in the same way these people deliberately blind themselves and don't even question everyone around them or pay attention to their own primary books that show them these things. It is real insanity to just memorize what teachers tell you and fill in the blanks as they grade you on and never bother to even think about what is implied in the fundamental teachings and meaning of even the word electromagnetism. It is absolute insanity.

You can see how just one word used in this way can mislead everyone and cut everyone off from realizing what is really happening. Energy is not being "transfer"red as is implied. Yes it is merely a signal transfer of energy, but the so-called receiver coil is not receiving the energy from the primary transmitter into itself as they view it. It is an influence for it to charge itself from its own local source. It becomes a source charge, and this is the place G where the gains happen as well. First in the resonance series tank. Then in the replication of the signal in itself from electron spin. Then the parallel tank also has a resonance gain in itself, etc.

8. The last statement below is also wrong in many cases. If you have the coils very closely together you can influence the others in a way that diminishes all the outputs OR MAKES THEM OUTPUT MORE. However, this is not always the case and if we space and tune them in many positions we find that they really don't noticeably influence each other. Again, it depends on spacing and phasing. There are man objectives in the kit, and one of them is to show that they are each independent of each other and can be influenced by the primary fluxing radiation of the transmitter that does not get absorbed into each coil so that it cannot continue on to influence others. So in this way thousands of coils can be influenced by the transmitter while not eating up such signal in the first layers. And you have about 70% of the area around the transmitter that is active. I only showed a small percentage of that area powering coils, and untuned at that. Also ungrounded at that. Also, loads that did not do any frequency reduction at that. And not in quarter wave lengths at that. Etc., etc., etc.

It is not so much of "a slow and arduous process." Once you have an understanding of how these things work then you can proceed with hope and excitement. The sky is literally not the limit. But you have to start first with what I said yesterday. All this talk is meaningless when you assuming that there cannot be any gains anywhere. Start with what I said and first come to grips with more than one closed loop of constant current upon resistive loads. If you can't get past that as some of these guys believe, then there is no discussion at all. Stefan may as well close the forum down then. Again, consider the actual reactive loops within/created in these supposed closed loops in everyday circuits as Walter Lewin pointed out and demonstrated. Once you observe real loads powered (like batteries, capacitors, lights, motors, etc.) then you realize that these reactive loops are additional gains beyond the primary Kirchhoff loop they only measure. Their predetermined boundary conditions don't allow for those loads to exist and therefore they argue in a circle that only the limited loop is to be measured or even to exist.

So this demonstration does not "show the behaviour of magnetically coupled resonant LC circuits"  and " these characteristics are" NOT "fully valid for such setups discussed here" They represent at best only limited possible behavior under limited circumstances. Notice G is all enthusiastic to believe and conclude on such matters even though he has not personally seen any of Itsu's work in the real world. How eager he is to jump upon a result and present it as "fully valid" and as "the behaviour" of such things conveyed in the context of my kit. But this is not actually the truth is it? Itsu has just started and has told his limitations. He is just beginning to work with new ideas. Why has G and others made him the expert? Obviously he does not even claim to be an expert as he is just discovering new things and relationships here. My point in this is to draw attention to how G is once again misleading people here in very subtle ways when he never bothered to answer any of the fundamental questions I asked him. These subtle responses end up misdirecting people back into the mainstream beliefs that necessarily lead to under unity results. He has never explained what basis he has for making that one sentence which gave the impression that he hoped to find some gain out of a circuit one day. Mere lip service to a belief in OU. On the contrary, he has shown that he does not believe that there is any real gain in a resonance tank circuit. And it appears here that he may only believe the energy is transferred from a transmitter into one or all of the receiver coils in the mainstream understanding, in which case would mean that there was no possibility for their to be gain in adding multiple coils. Every statement I have read from him in our interaction suggests that he only believes mainstream views of energy transfer and under unity and all advice and remarks are merely under that umbrella. So why are such people here or why not press them to tell us what they really believe? If OU is impossible then why hide this from us? Some of you know why.

Hi Arne,
It is good you show the behaviour of magnetically coupled resonant LC circuits, these characteristics are fully valid for such setups discussed here. The best energy transfer can happen when all the LC circuits mutually have the critical coupling between any and each LC circuit present in the setup, all tuned to resonance. This situation is very hard to achieve because any adjustment on any of the LC circuits influence all the others, a slow and arduous process.
Gyula

[rickfriedrich]

Yes PLL system can and is often applied to this. But you have understand the foundations first. Just like with the PLL tesla coils (I have all of them) they have to start off with the right relationships as PLL only works with what it has to work with. This is very important for changing loads and relationships like in Stan's water cell.
Just remember that you are only as good as your foundation and the way you are coming into these things. If you follow G then you will always end up in under unity because you will be limited in your considerations and environment.

Perhaps a kind of PLL system is needed on the big coil to keep it at resonance by automatically moving the frequency.
Thanks,  Itsu

[baudirenergie]

Hi Rick,
thank you so much for your answer/help and also your comment from yesterday. It was a break through for me. Before I had results but didn't really understand it and not exactly know what to do. It was the missing part for me. Oh my god! Is it really so easy!?!

Very good to hear this from you.
Yes, the key is "balance".
There are bunch of options here, and I leave this for people to learn the full way for themselves. I have shown the basic way that gets people started.
Yes, the object is not to charge the batteries but to keep them basically in the same place so that you don't have to rotate them and then you just have the true self-runner. For people really don't want to mess with batteries anyway. It actually is an pain to have to deal with a charging battery just as much as having to charge up an input battery. So we have to start with a discharged battery on the charge side and a charged battery on the input side. Then they will have their minor rise and drops at start up and then just hold out the same. If you unbalance the load and make it too much you can send back more energy to the front and the input charges up. You can drop the charging rate as well if it becomes unbalanced. Someone was trying to suggest that the battery charging was sometimes discharging. But that never was the case. The charging battery started at low voltage and rose up under charge, and merely dropped a little at times due to specific changes in the tuning. It was always charging. But the object is not to charge that battery but to be merely a potential or more like Tesla's end point "P" in his schematics. A terminal point or capacitance.

It think people will finally get this now. It is a whole different day.