Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[Void]

   itsu, Gyula:   Why is there a difference when comparing a multi secondary coils pulsing system like what you've shown, to a radio station.   Does the radio station loose it's transmitting power depending on how many people's radios are tuning in to it?
   Why would adding more receiving coils, not work the same? But, it doesn't, normally, adding more coils bring down the total working voltage, and output at the load (led). WHY?  I ask.
   itsu, did placing coils inside of the main coil, help, or not? 

Hi Nick. There is a difference in the way things work and the way they should be analyzed
between the near field around coils and antennas, and the far field. The near field can roughly be
described as the space around a coil or antenna where self sustaining EM radiation hasn't fully formed.
Placing receiving coils within the near field of a 'transmitter' coil will cause loading on the transmitter coil.
The further away the receiver coil is away from the transmitter coil, the less power can be drawn from the transmitting coil.
Receiving antennas are normally well in the far field range of an RF transmitter, and do not load down the transmitter.
The power the transmitter is consuming is lost in the driver circuitry and the EM radiation from the antenna whether there are
any receiving antennas or not. At quite low frequencies, a coil will not radiate much EM radiation, so you are mainly concerned with
the near field.

[Void]

Itsu's video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9dLj5MrAHY
3 minutes in -  inserting a relay coil causes output to go UP and input to go DOWN.
WHY ARE WE IGNORING THIS!!!
It's like the forum has Cognitive dissonance

Hi a.king21. I have been busy with various other things and still am, so I haven't seen any
of Itsu's test videos here, but I will point out a common misconception in circuit arrangements such as you
described, which is the assumption that input power consumption should go up and down in direct relation to the amount
of output power being delivered to the circuit load.

That is not always the case however. In AC circuits we have the concept of impedance matching. Changing the output
configuration by adding or removing coils or changing coil windings or loads, etc., for example, changes the impedance
matching between the input circuitry and the output circuitry. This will cause the efficiency of the overall AC circuit
to change. If a change is made to a circuit arrangement which increases the overall circuit efficiency of the circuit,
you can potentially deliver more overall output power to your load(s) while seeing a drop in input power consumption.
This is due to increasing the circuit's efficiency by improving the input to output impedance matching.

However, such an increase in efficiency tells an experimenter nothing about whether the circuit is anywhere near COP =1, or not. That can
only be determined by properly measuring the overall circuit efficiency. Since making such efficiency measurements can sometimes be
tricky in AC circuits, the only really half decent reliable test of whether an OU experimenter may be anywhere near COP =1 or better, is to try to
self loop the circuit. Such a test setup bypasses any potential mistakes in measurements or mistakes due to incorrect assumptions or the experimenter
potentially overlooking other important factors which are throwing off their measurements. There are numerous ways that experimenters
can potentially be mislead by just looking at measurements alone (especially at lower power levels), so a self-looping 
arrangement becomes the only real practical benchmark way to separate the wheat from the chaff. We have all seen
where experimenters thought they were onto something really special only to find that it all falls apart when they try to self-loop
their circuit arrangement.

The first law of 'over unity' testing:
If you haven't tested your circuit arrangement using a self looping arrangement and left it to run for a reasonable
length of time (depends on power source being used and total power consumption), then you are not in any sort
of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP.

[a.king21]

Void:  I agree entirely.

[Hoppy]

The first law of 'over unity' testing:
If you haven't tested your circuit arrangement using a self looping arrangement and left it to run for a reasonable
length of time (depends on power source being used and total power consumption), then you are not in any sort
of reasonable position to attempt to draw any definite conclusions about the circuit COP.

Hi Void,
I would like to add that when the DUT is running from a battery supply, be aware of the current drawn as a percentage of the C20 rate of the battery. If the current drawn is very substantially less, than the C20 rated current for the battery, then the effective battery capacity is very substantially increased (ref Peukerts Law). This can result in what I refer to as 'stalling', where the battery terminal voltage appears to 'hang' steady for a long period of time. It is also possible that the battery terminal voltage will rise for a period of time, especially if the battery is sulfated to an extent, giving the impression that the DUT is running on free energy! It is in this situation, as well as heavily loaded situations on a battery, that vagaries appear and can very easily lead to false conclusions on the efficiency of a given DUT. Using low current LED's and big batteries, exacerbates this 'hanging' condition. Also, allowing high frequency voltages onto the battery supply rails without effective filtering, also results in vagaries leading to false conclusions.

[Void]

Hi Void,
I would like to add that when the DUT is running from a battery supply, be aware of the current drawn as a percentage of the C20 rate of the battery. If the current drawn is very substantially less, than the C20 rated current for the battery, then the effective battery capacity is very substantially increased (ref Peukerts Law). This can result in what I refer to as 'stalling', where the battery terminal voltage appears to 'hang' steady for a long period of time. It is also possible that the battery terminal voltage will rise for a period of time, especially if the battery is sulfated to an extent, giving the impression that the DUT is running on free energy! It is in this situation, as well as heavily loaded situations on a battery, that vagaries appear and can very easily lead to false conclusions on the efficiency of a given DUT. Using low current LED's and big batteries, exacerbates this 'hanging' condition. Also, allowing high frequency voltages onto the battery supply rails without effective filtering, also results in vagaries leading to false conclusions.

Hi Hoppy. Yes, I agree. Using a relatively high capacity battery with a small load at the output could
give the false impression that the battery is staying close to fully charged. Itsu avoids that
sort of problem by testing using super caps, I believe, which is good, but the super caps I have
are fairly leaky so not the best for that kind of testing. Maybe you can get a type of super caps these
days that have low leakage losses. Not sure. That would be great for testing if very low leakage
super caps are available.