Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[seaad]

Rick
This thread is : confirmation-of-ou-devices
                              and-claims

I'm anyhow glad that you put the safety first.

Arne

[Hoppy]

Rick,
I assume that you have built an OU device. How did you determine that it is OU?

[AlienGrey]

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt11.html
" the Joseph Newman Motor.....

Dr.  Roger Hastings.....  800% efficiency...

with 1,5 Watt power input ,the back emf exceeded 80000 Watts.  ...."

Peak efficiency/average efficiency. ?  No/quarter/half/full load condition

Half wave would cancel it self out as it would be 2 negative peeks or 2 positive peeks.

[lancaIV]

Half wave would cancel it self out as it would be 2 negative peeks or 2 positive peeks.

If such a high back emf what was as forward emf to measure  ? No given value. !
Was it only an arithmetical  Henrypeak-to-Wattpeak conversion by Dr. Hastings ?
80000/1,5= > 53.000 or > 5300000% inrush/outrush peak ratio
How much Tesla-pulse force for given Volt-Ampere/Frequency input  ?!
( do you think in german Max-Planck- and Fraunhofer-Institutions they are not interested about extreme "divergenz" ? )
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=WO&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2009124783&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en

[rickfriedrich]

Arne,
Thank you for saying one positive thing. Safety is far more important than getting free energy. For who can calculate a death or severe injury?
I never said it wasn't an OU device. I said I never intended it to be an OU claim. I even wanted to not use those words. But then it became impossible to avoid the subject when dealing with resonance. So then I enlarged upon that subject with the kit.

Now there is a problem with the different definitions of the words Over Unity and I doubt that everyone would agree on those terms. Some people want more than over unity, and in this thread I think you all expect self-running. Now I certainly did not make the kit to be a self-runner. But I did get into the way of doing that the proper way (as in having several secondary coils in the right special relationships from the primary so that they are all transmitters and receiver coils) where the input could actually go to zero with the right phasing. You guys are trying to do it the wrong way with the wrong parts, but you still may even be able to do it that way.

You guys were all talking about this kit long before I came here to help out. I told A.King not to promote my kits on these forums as they just bring out some of the clowns who want to play games. The other forum he did this turned out really bad, but now they have apologized and invited me back. So I didn't come here to push anything or any product on anyone. I was welcomed and have been helpful and to the point. I gave you all what you want. And if that is not enough you can watch my videos for meters or whathaveyou. People can even come to meetings and see such things in the real world. Tell me where you find that these days? Even some of these people have shared what they saw, as well as others who have the kit. Therefore I have satisfied the improper conditions of a proper claim of OU on this thread, one that assumes you can make a proof claim by video, pictures and words. I did that while expressly titling the video that you cannot prove OU over the internet so that no one would get the wrong impression from me (as I have said for years the same thing). As I said over and over again, that there is a double standard with you guys. You folks will readily believe anything that supposedly supports mainstream claims and anything that appears to go against OU, but you do not believe the same quality or nature of a claim or that appears to support and OU claim. This is deceptive. Why is a negative claim to be believed without sufficient proof, while a positive one automatically disbelieved (or where people demand more than they would for a negative claim). How many times do I have to say this before anyone says, yeah Rick, that is logical??? Again, no claim should be accepted as fact or proven, and anyone giving such indication should be corrected. We should merely thank someone for their contribution and then try and confirm to ourselves these things. Nothing wrong with testimony and claims. But to assume they are proven is not science. It is just disinformation resulting in endless nonsense.

Rick
This thread is : confirmation-of-ou-devices
                              and-claims

I'm anyhow glad that you put the safety first.

Arne