Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[Void]

For anyone who cares at all about reality, here is a recap of the essentials in OU circuit testing.
These laws were derived from many years of practical experience and have been proven many times over to be true and immutable laws.

First law of 'over unity' circuit 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 (i.e., the supposition of COP > 1).

Second law of 'over unity' circuit testing:
If a person refuses to put in an effort to self-loop a circuit setup under test in a reasonable way, which they are claiming is OU,
which should be quite straightforward and easy to do in most cases, then chances are very high they are just blowing smoke. 

Third Law of 'over unity' circuit testing:
Ignore the above two laws at your own peril. All else is folly.

[a.king21]

A.king21,

You are joking again,  right?    Cold electricity is like the holy grail in free energy and you can't
remember the circuit but you asked me to "check it out"?:
https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg536322/#msg536322

Itsu

Your comment to me on another forum is insulting.  I don't need to prove cold electricity to you or anyone else. This is for each person to determine for themselves. It was a DSE circuit.

[Void]

I for one would love to see a reasonable demonstration of 'cold electricity' or 'negative electricity'.
I can't say I have ever seen a demonstration of such concepts which looks reasonable to me, but I have an open mind.
Nothing would be more cool (no pun intended) than to be able to power a load without depleting the power source and while the circuitry and
load remains cold or gets colder or forms frost as the circuit operates, and I am not talking about a refrigeration type circuit.  ;-)

[Void]

It was a DSE circuit.

What is a DSE circuit? Don Smith ? circuit?

[rickfriedrich]

Void,
Well I can think of one other person whose words I don't understand. I really don't think anyone sees me as being nonsensical.
Notice you say "pretty much". Obviously it is not "an essential requirement".
First of all, why is electrical energy the only form of energy that is acceptable to you people? Why are other forms of energy production any less? Again, if I power a fan normally, which requires all the input to do that, and now I produce some electrical or some light in addition to that, why is that not OU? Why not just say only self-looping circuit is worthy of any consideration. Why call that OU?

Secondly, I am not against self-looping. That is fine. But you are over-reaching here. You are trying to claim too much.

Thirdly, I understand perfectly well that most people don't know what they are doing. So you are just arguing from what you think is a practical level. I am just saying that demonstrating free energy is a lot easier than you assume it is. You guys don't use term free energy here for some reason. That's fine, whatever you want to call it. More than normal, more than unity, nonconservative. Someone runs a motor, and then after adding a load on the reactive side they produce more output. The end of the story without any sell-looping. That is not insignificant. You guys do not want to admit that.

You say: "One of course does not use self-looping to measure the COP, just to determine if the COP might really be greater than 1." That's all fine but that still is all that it is. What you are really saying is that self-looping is the ONLY thing that matters. And that simply is not true. You guys are not proving your point here. I have long proved otherwise. While many people have self-loop setups, many thousands do not and still have OU.

Again, I do not disregard self-looping. Spend a little more time to actually ready what I write and stop misrepresenting me as saying nonsense. Just because you insist upon self-looping does not mean that 1. I must agree with that, or 2. That I don't believe in self-looping.

Also, if I rotate the same batteries around for years then that is a different kind of self-looping that you guys also reject. You are therefore trying to control what other people do for whatever reason. But you don't get to make up some rules here. It is not about words but about actually getting more work done than is thought to be possible. If I have a fan that takes 29W to run, and now I run it the same speed but also power other loads, then I have done that. That has nothing to do with self-looping. If I have a 26' boat and I run it for three years where it is not self-looped, but I merely stop it for a second and rotate around the big Anderson connectors to swap the batteries around then I think that is what we are all after??? This is not the self-loop you desire but it is the same end result. So you guys don't really know what you are saying by insisting in a certain form of things. I do because I have been doing all these ways, self-looped, battery rotation manually, battery rotation automatically, and also producing every form of energy as an output for many years now. I'm not at the place you guys are at where you supposedly have not experience OU yet. That was 15 years ago and many of us have long moved on to actually using this energy in every way...

You keep saying "nonsense" but it is obvious to everyone that you are just trying to convince people of something by repeating the same word. How is one to respond to that? That actually makes no sense.

You bring up the fact that so many people fail. Well why have you guys attacked and mocked me for driving home the truth that you cannot prove or disprove any OU claim over the internet? That is the most significant error contributing to all this confusion on these forums. You give license to false claims and suppression to real claims. Why not admit this? Instead you guys go on this trip to push this arbitrary requirement. That is not the problem. The problem is about dealing with prejudgment and ignorance. The ignorance is not with the people who do not understand electronics, but also with those who only know mainstream theory. Both of you guys make equally bad mistakes. The later just assumes half of electrical reality is the whole story. Welcome to the history of science where the same people continue to perpetuate perpetual motion arrogance! They know everything and condemn anyone who questions that.

Now look at your circular statement here that amounts to nothing: "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." This is beyond circular, it is silly. You say if a person doesn't understand why something is important, because they are unaware of it, they should somehow know that they should take up a new hobby. That's really sound reasoning, actually Void of reasoning  If they don't understand why something is so important how are they supposed to know? Silly! But you beg the question here. Why is it so important? It may be convenient for you. It may be what you want. But there are other options to benefit from free energy processes that are different than self-looping. I have proven this now, so the case is closed here. All you can do is make nonsensical statements like this all the while saying I am saying nonsense. Usually name calling in such cases reflects what the person is doing themselves.

Anyway, you have not made any point here to justify your claim. Just that it would seem more convenient for what you are after. The fact is that while I have done what you demand to be the only way, I find that it is not the only way to do that and is not the best way. It is far better to have the system maintain itself rather than try and close more loops and shuffle current around. That really goes against an OU system anyway. The end of the matter is that you can have OU without self-looping.

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.