Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

Nick,
I'm not following you. You have this or are asking what size coils do you need to have to do this? Not sure if you mean the same thing here with the words secondary coil and receiver coils.
A full circuit with proper loading is found in the rectenna technology. These will have proper impedance matching and frequency conversion to run DC loads. That is mainstream science already. All of the setups so far, like Itsu's or mine have not used proper or efficient filtering. We are only using a fraction of the actual energy that could be used because the capacitors, diodes, and/or loads are not meant for RF. So everything after the receiver coil (and in a way the coil itself) is already given in the rectenna tech. So that is what you would do. Just consider the many patents on the subject. The thing to examine is the gains in a resonance tank circuit, and it's effects on the local environment that can benefit from such gains and radiation. You are wanting a loop system, and that is fine. I'm just pointing to the easiest way for you to do that.

   Rick:  Ok, so I have an air coil tuned to 1.2MHz. It's connected to two 12v batteries providing 24v DC to the driver circuit. This Tesla type of secondary coil then provides an output of about 4000v, at 1.2MHz.  What size do the receiver coils need to be?   Like I said, a schematic with all the component values, coil sizes and details would be nice.
   Gyula: Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am aware of the normal coupling issues with far and near field of a radio transmitter.
But, the idea here is to find the anomaly, and not the normal situation with transmitting radio waves.That was really my question.
  Remember what Wesley has mentioned, concerning transmitting electrical signals world wide. To be received and converted to use able electrical power, with little to no losses in signal. Millions of dollars invested in that updated Tesla type of technology.
There must be something to it... as we all know about signal losses over great distances. But, it's what we don't know, that may be important, in this case. Perhaps using a higher input, and placing the receiver coils further away may help. Or not?
   As itsu has shown a slight decrease in input power, while adding more coils onto the main coil, what makes this possible is the question at hand. And how many other coils can also tap into that near field, while dropping the input even lower, to actually obtain a higher output, than the input. Of course, that is still to be seen, replicated and shown. Whether one believes it, or not, is up to each person's discretion.

[rickfriedrich]

Void,
And that is the question. What is really happening in the near field. We don't even have a quarter wave length of distance. And yet quarter wavelength relationships really matter in the near field. We have both capacitive and magnetic relationships here. Not just with coils but many other objects, including our bodies. A lot of radiation is measured around the transmitter, and placing 500 loaded coils around it still produces radiation beyond them. Even placing a proper secondary inside of the primary, or around it (where all the radiation passes through it, will still allow this radiation to go beyond it to other coils and beyond them. This is a matter of fact of basic observation. This is all rather involved and it is perplexing to people who want a tidy simplistic model that conforms to the presumptuous law of conservation. This is why I made the kit as I did with the sensitive LED to learn these relationships in the near field. People really don't have any experience with these things because they are either doing radio in the far field and never even think about getting anything but weak signals they are amplifying, or if they work in the near field it is with one receiver coil that has an encrypted connection (which doesn't allow for the gains we are dealing with). And actually, what I am saying here is the very near future technology that will be in all your homes with the new rectenna tech that will be together with the internet monitoring of everything (ie, internet of things). WIFI powering and interacting with everything in a Smart (actually the dumbest thing ever) existence. Your clocks and gadgets and probably everything over $1 will have it's own IP and be powered this way. Things will be far more 'efficient' in this way at a sacrifice of your privacy and the every present risk of being hacked or just things not working. Total information awareness and total dependence upon his technology for everything. This is the new currency and the next new world order...

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.

[rickfriedrich]

This first part is true. And misconceptions do happen all the time. You have a circuit that is not running efficiently and the output is low. But then you tune it properly and it produces a higher output. But all that is within the Kirchhoff loop rule. Once we are dealing outside of that primary loop, and experiencing gains beyond the death circle then we are dealing with another matter in reactive loops that can result in additional gains. This is the dirty little secret everyone wants to avoid. Again I bring up the billions of DC brushless motor fans around the world. They are given an efficiency rating that can be in the mid to high 90s in some cases. So if you move a single diode and charge a battery at the same time you still have the same efficiency, input energy, and CFMs produced/consumed on the motor death (because it kills the source charge) loop. But now you have another battery being charged, or capacitor, or bulb running, etc. Now it is easy to see that the gains on this reactive loop are much more than the few % left to make up 100%. So efficiency only goes so far. The reactive loop as properly loaded (which is never done in mainstream) is free energy and the combined loads in motor and battery are above unity or 100%.

The same is true with these RF systems in the near field, even when non-RF parts are used on purpose to keep the output safe and low for the amateur. 90 coils loaded down produced many times more light than should have been possible. And 500 coils could have been used, each of which can lower the input without lowering the loading of each bulb.

The secret of this is understanding the principles of free energy. The first is the 'Selfish Circuits or Loving Giving Paths' principle of open/reactive loops in addition to closed single body loops. Once you create and use the reactive loop in the fan you have a many body system that has a gain. Once you make a resonance tank circuit you have a many body system rather than one. The key is to also use that as I am doing with many receivers or many turns secondary. Each secondary must be arranged to be just like the reactive loop in the fan, and not as part of the death loop of Kirchhoff. You can couple these receiver coils as a single body and experience that under unity dynamic most of you assume as only possible, or you can make it a reactive loop/receiver that is like the fan and allows for a more independent relationship with the primary body and thus has an independent gain above the primary body efficiency. Direct coupling is mostly under unity, but loose coupling allows for a many body network or system to experience real gains as T. W. Barrett said 30 years ago and as Kron finally realized long before him: "A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author's years-long search." Once you guys get this first point you can begin nonlinear reactive engineering.

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.

[rickfriedrich]

I forgot to respond to this second point in this post. There is no truth in this statement at all. There is no law of over unity testing like this. Just because a few of you guys want and demand a self-looping does not mean you can't draw any COP conclusions. Says who? And why? You guys have not justified this assumption. You can very easily understand and measure the efficiency of your primary loop circuit and also measure your reactive loops where the gains take place. These do not have to feed back into each other to understand the total COP. That is non-sense. You guys are just wanting someone to give you a self-looping circuit and work for you for free. So you ignore any claims that would be different than this.

It just so happens that I may want to power a fan at the same power input and CFMs while charging a battery or running a light. And maybe I only have time to do the basic change by merely moving one diode in the circuit. Now if this only gives me 70% more energy than previously, while still running the motor exactly the same, then why couldn't I measure that COP? Why would I have to self-loop this for it to be significant? Why is not 10% over unity acceptable? Or 20%? Or 50%? Self-looping is not always practical or what is wanted. And it is better to not do it by pushing current either. It allows for more output when you keep the input at zero in other ways. Now the fan circuit could be replaced with a fast switching mosfet circuit like I have in my motors and give better results than merely moving one diode.

So let it be settled that this often repeated assumption is false. It is not a first law of OU research to demand a self-loop system to determine COP. Another OU.com myth busted!

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.

[TinselKoala]

Is this system OU?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74