Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[TinselKoala]

Is this system OU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvf9Uo7UVx0

[NickZ]

   TK:   
   Good to see you here. And you're showing a good refresher course of input to output calculations. Something that most of us can learn something from.   Your rig appears to show OU, but if so, can it be made to self run? As that is the final show down.
    Any readings can be wrong, so the loop back is always the part that fills the missing link. 
    Thanks for showing your previous videos. Perhaps you'd like to join in on this project?                                                                                                                                 NickZ
       
   

[Void]

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!

Hi Rick. If you only knew just how nonsensical your statements are here...
I actually already clearly explained why setting up a proper self-looping circuit arrangement is pretty much an
essential requirement before anyone can be in any position to reasonably suggest that they are getting a COP > 1
with their circuit setup.

Undeniable Fact:  Most people who experiment and search for OU are not anywhere near experts on power measurements on complex
AC circuits or even on basic AC circuits for that matter, and people in these forums often make all kinds of mistakes in their measurements and
in their assumptions, and also often overlook one or more important factors which may otherwise be throwing off their measurements. Self-looping
the output power of a device to loop back to assist or fully provide the input power to the claimed COP > 1 device is therefore a very important step to
rule out measurement errors, etc. Such a self-looped arrangement doesn't completely rule out external factors affecting the results, but if the
self-looping testing is set up properly and reasonably it can go a long way towards eliminating being mislead by measurement errors and incorrect assumptions.
One of course does not use self-looping to measure the COP, just to determine if the COP might really be greater than 1.

Rick, from seeing a number of your videos in the past, it doesn't surprise me at all that you are completely missing the great importance of a
self-looped test setup in this area of experimentation, and that you responded back with a bunch of nonsense. BTW, I was just kidding about the part
about this being 'a law', but really this testing requirement should be an absolute given in this area of experimentation after all the many years of people
posting nonsense in these forums and on YouTube. There is just no question about the great importance of trying to implement
circuit self-looping in regards to any circuit setup which an experimenter thinks might be exhibiting a COP > 1.
If a person can't understand why this is so important, and it really should be obvious why it is very critical, then IMO they should take
up a new hobby. They are most likely only going to end up misleading them self and possibly others as well
who are also naïve and gullible, unless their intention is to mislead others and try to separate other people from their money.
There are number of people like that out there as well.

In probably most cases, examination of a claimed COP > 1 circuit arrangement which may drag on for months and months here due to
experimenters making incorrect measurements and/or making incorrect assumptions or missing other important factors influencing their results,
could quickly be analyzed as to its real performance by simply taking a little bit of time to determine a reasonable and proper way to self-loop
the circuit setup and then observe how it really performs. 

[NickZ]

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:  Thanks for the reply. Yes, I have that, which I mentioned. It just so happens that the secondary of Tesla coil is tuned to the 1.2MHz frequency. It's frequency can be controlled to a certain point, by adding or removing coils on the secondary, (or by connecting to different taps along the secondary). Or by inserting ferrite into the Tesla secondary coil. It's output is dependent on the input power, but normally it's around 4 to 6000v. My question was about the specs on the receiving coils, and what is needed there.
   Dr. Stiffler was doing many different tests along the same or similar lines. And itsu, Gyula, and of our other guys here were also  involved in, long with myself. To see if the Doc's dying secret, the "diode loop", would provide for higher efficiency in lighting 120v AC 12w led bulbs. I followed and replicated some his efforts until his death. The diode loop was a very interested project. And somewhat similar with what's going on here. One important point though, the Doc found that at 13.6MHz there is a signal from the planet, (or atmosphere) that can be tapped into, so that was where he tuned his circuits to. However, that particular non man made signal may be something specific to his location, and may vary from place to place, or not, that part was not verified.
   Anyway, I still don't know just exactly what circuit is used on this project. And still need a more specific schematic, if there is one.
   I do have a 2MHz SG, Scope, multimeters, 12v batteries etz... So I'm ready to play ball...

[gyulasun]

https://overunity.com/17186/the-bifilar-pancake-coil-at-its-resonant-frequency/msg534659/#new
Pease note the circuit was designed by Nelson Rocha. and works very well.

Hi AlienGrey,

Thanks for the answer, will try to digest evostars's video(s) on the schematic later.  Back then he dealt with it I did not
follow his activity. I know that the circuit originates from Nelson. 
I would have questions on that circuit: your notice of "it works very well" means exactly what? 
And is the output power taken from L3C4 parallel circuit? 

Gyula