Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[TinselKoala]

   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
       
   

Thanks for the flowers, but I'm trying to retire. Sometimes I just cannot restrain myself though.

Loop back to self-power is good, but don't forget the Daisy Chain. Can the output of the OU system power another identical unit, which in turn could power a third identical unit, with even a tiny bit extra to run an external load at each stage? This should be even easier than self-looping for an OU device with electrical inputs and outputs.

[TinselKoala]

If you were following what I have been saying over the last 3 weeks you would see that I agree with that. I do not try and prove anything with a video. But this means that you cannot disprove anything with a video as well.
The big difference with your setup and mine is that you were using 300ma to power three tiny leds and I was using 60 and 80ma powering 90 LEDs and also that I could have easily 500. I also had witnesses who are actually reading this forum right now. But again, you can't prove anything over the internet, which is what I titled the video showing this.

Ah... but your system depends on the Function Generator to operate, and someone needs to retune the FG fairly frequently as load characteristics change, right? My system is self contained and _all_ the input power is accounted for. People forget that _all_ necessary components of a system must be included in the power calculations. If the FG is necessary for your system to operate, you need to include the INPUT power to the FG as part of the system's total input power. This is true regardless of whether or not significant power can be transferred through the gate driver's internal capacitances (and you might be surprised how much can be). By all rights you should also include your breakfast in the input power, since you are retuning the thing constantly and it won't perform without your retuning.

(And of course we all know and appreciate that current is not power, right?)

And please don't tell me you believe that _only_ three tiny LEDs would light up in my system. In further vids I show it powering incandescent bulbs and motors with real, not reactive, power -- while the three tiny LEDs and their receiver are just sitting on the table, brilliantly lit. No FG involved, no manual tuning of the transmitter required.

So I ask again: Is it OU? Seriously, it seems to me that if you can claim that your system is OU, then you should be able to acknowledge that mine is too. Conversely, whatever reasons my system _isn't_ OU... apply to yours as well, don't they?

(500 LEDs on minuscule power? No big deal at all, just ask Pirate Bill ! )

[baudirenergie]

Tinsel,
why you here on this tread? To play around with words and show you are the big deal, because you have proven in 2013 some resonant miscalculations on paper and now think we are all idiots and didn't realize this newby miscalculations, that you have shown?
You miss the point. Please, go back and read the tread completely and ask the right questions, if you wish more informations to the topic, I am pretty sure, you will understand it. Hope it will be also open a door for you and your next experiments.

[rickfriedrich]

T,
I don't think you realize what I'm saying or where I am coming from. I've been talking about reactive loops in most of my posts. I don't think you will disagree with much of what I have shared by the sounds of it. I don't have a problem with your measurements, but I have been trying to make a point on this forum that you can't prove anything by a video. And yes, what you did is exactly what I am doing in a different way. I only try and go over things people are asking about. They are really not for the general public. Nor do I put any quality effort into them, which I will probably do soon when I get more time. I'm my biggest critic. Well some guys here come close to that.
So I like what you say first paragraph.
Phase shift is very important to understand.
I didn't have time to go over the other videos as I spent a lot of time posting here and talking with some of you guys on the phone who are posting here.
As for making conclusions about shown measurements I am not convinced of any video or pictures. But I can replicate things for myself and I am not closeminded. I appreciate Tinman's attempts. I would have seen that video when it came out but would have to refresh myself.

I didn't say OU can't be self-looped. See all my posts today saying that over and over again. My point is the 'Void presumption' that OU is only when something is self-looped is a false claim. It is not self-evident or demonstrated. I have shared that you can have OU without looping just as you can with it. For example, you can have it do other work, and even be other forms of energy. I work with many people not only in research but in real systems in many applications. So when these guys insist upon it is just immature. It is simply said because they want this particular setup. They are still trying to prove OU to themselves and they want it to be this way before they believe it. They have different conditions than what is real. Like I said, OU is not 200% energy production. It can be 110% or anything above unity. Of course people can mean whatever they want with words. I don't really care about words, I accept people for what they mean. I grew up in the most multicultural city in the world Toronto and do not let differences of language get in the way. I know people have baggage and key words set them off. Understood. Anyway, my point is that if we have what I call the death loop, the loop that destroys the source charge, and all the power is accounted for in that loop according to Kirchhoff and then we have the reactive loop where we measure more power that is powering more loads, then we have OU whether it is looped back or not. Is that so hard for people to admit? Put it in your own words, people know what I mean by the fan example. And this is where I am telling people to start, because it is easier to see this than trying to do a self-loop. These are fine, and both are really the beginning to this research. What I am trying to do is show people how to multiply the reactive loops like Tesla's shuttle circuits which I have been showing for many years now. It seems you may know what I am talking about. So I wish you all the best in doing that.

Haha Mylo days. No, I exposed him. That was me mocking him. He was using forced air. But we did have the Howard Johnson train. We tested it and as far as I could see it was about equal in as it was out. It may have been possible to make a loop. But all such systems were merely perpetual without any ability for a real load. The real system was just never going to be allowed. Some guys are doing it and leasing them out in certain countries (not US).

Anyway, can you share some details about yourself more specifically. No one of these skeptics wants to admit why the believe OU or disbelieve it. So far G has given two sentences that say he expects a circuit to show extra gains or something like that. But I would love to know what was the reason for saying that. Do you have any basis for believing in OU? What have you experienced? I'm trying to build a foundation for these guys here but no one wants to admit anything. So far it is all just mainstream circles. I'm not sure from your second last paragraph if you are merely thinking that I don't believe in those things or if you are referring to yourself in that. It's a little unclear about what you are believing yourself.

No, that's not the "big difference" at all.  The "Big Difference" is that I provided good, repeatable measurements and I showed all my work to derive the result. I've shown the power in the reactive loop of my apparatus is many times over the input power. Later videos in that particular series demonstrate the Transverter, an apparatus to convert the reactive power VARs into real power in Watts, to drive motors, incandescent bulbs and high voltage spark gaps, while simultaneously powering LEDs.  And I present my work in fully replicable manner. I do not expect anyone to accept "proof over the internet" -- just assemble the circuits, follow the protocols and see what happens.

OK, so maybe that's not what you mean by OU, and maybe you don't like reactive power, even though that is what your system is based on.  And Itsu is perfectly correct about the phase shift, as I also explained in later vids in that series.

But you didn't even say a word about the other two videos I asked about. The Partzman Bifilar Transformer produces clear and unambiguous OU measurements, even taking into account the phase difference between current and voltage through the load, and shows input power decreasing as a further load is added by inductive pickup. Is it OU?
And the TinMan Bifilar LED circuit shines its 4 LEDs brilliantly with ZERO CURRENT indicated on meters monitoring both legs of the input power. Zero milliamps, even zero microamps. Is it OU?

I'm just trying to figure out what kind of OU you are selling, Rick, since it can't be self-looped, it can't be daisy chained, it can't be accumulated in a battery or a capacitor, and the properly measured outputs never actually exceed the inputs. All three of the demonstrations I've provided illustrate different aspects of inductive wireless power transmission, resonance phenomena and measurement protocols and pitfalls. And all three provide OU measurements, exhibit behaviours similar to your device and make various points that relate directly to your system.
I know you've been doing this a long time. In fact the first time I remember you is from the Mylow days. Where is that video clip of Bedini standing in the background, and someone who looks a lot like you in the foreground, spinning a "Mylow Magnet Motor" and shouting out "IT WORKS! IT WORKS !!!" Oh well... we all make mistakes.

[rickfriedrich]

Well, one of my students even showed one of the receiver coils replacing the FG so that is no big deal. That is only providing a logic input to the gate driver. The driver is where the power is on that kit. Now the kit was not for proving OU, even though that is a secondary purpose. It was to get a safe and simple resonance experience, which is lacking for most people in this research I found. I'm sure you can appreciate the need to learn the subtle relationships, and that is what that was about. I am teaching on Resonance and Impulsing and related subjects. The key is to learn these things at a safe level before you play with real power and endanger yourself.  So this is not some final system but the barebones beginners tool. The real deal is doing several more things and is just two coils. Well that is one of many different systems.
Power is the wasted energy measurement. The rate at which you are destroying the source charge. Such a negative perspective!  While I use meters all the time, once a system is set up I don't need to prove to myself that it is OU with a meter. It either runs or it doesn't. I either ran my boat for three years or I took the 5L engine out prematurely.

I'm very glad that you can see that you could run other loads. That is good to know. No, I didn't know there were more videos because you didn't say anything. I have mostly got ridicule on this thread so I didn't now what you were doing with the link.

Reactive is not power. But reactive loops (bodies) can be engineered to run loads that can have power measurements with the right means to do that as we see with Tesla.

I didn't carefully look at your video yet. Like I said, there wasn't enough information to make any conclusions. I would have to be there to fully know the environment. But there wasn't anything really unusual about what was shown to me. It wasn't unbelievable. I wasn't paying attention to your paper scraps but looking at other things in the video. But like I said, I don't conclude much from videos otherwise I would have to believe Mythbusters  My videos don't prove anything. But many customers see what I do and do the same for themselves. That is what they are for. That's why I don't do what these guys expect here. I'm not doing videos for skeptics but for people who already know these things. Anyone who wants something proven needs to come to a meeting if they want to put their meters on something. That happens from time to time. But really people need to prove things to themselves. That is real science. You can't do science through forums. They are just a means to share ideas, not prove ideas. I can only prove by appealing to what people already know. But these are truths of demonstration, which cannot be video or picture or word demonstrations. It has to be in the real world so we know all the environmental influences. Like Mylo and his forced air. I'm so glad you brought that up as I almost mentioned that the other day here. Or Mike with the hidden small 12V battery in the little black box running the window motor trying to copy what we did running the window motor for 20 minutes off an amplifier cap. Yes I exposed many faked videos. Sadly people would rather be entertained with fake videos because they are sensational rather than care about the plain truth.

No 500 LEDs on miniscule level.

Ah... but your system depends on the Function Generator to operate, and someone needs to retune the FG fairly frequently as load characteristics change, right? My system is self contained and _all_ the input power is accounted for. People forget that _all_ necessary components of a system must be included in the power calculations. If the FG is necessary for your system to operate, you need to include the INPUT power to the FG as part of the system's total input power. This is true regardless of whether or not significant power can be transferred through the gate driver's internal capacitances (and you might be surprised how much can be). By all rights you should also include your breakfast in the input power, since you are retuning the thing constantly and it won't perform without your retuning.

(And of course we all know and appreciate that current is not power, right?)

And please don't tell me you believe that _only_ three tiny LEDs would light up in my system. In further vids I show it powering incandescent bulbs and motors with real, not reactive, power -- while the three tiny LEDs and their receiver are just sitting on the table, brilliantly lit. No FG involved, no manual tuning of the transmitter required.

So I ask again: Is it OU? Seriously, it seems to me that if you can claim that your system is OU, then you should be able to acknowledge that mine is too. Conversely, whatever reasons my system _isn't_ OU... apply to yours as well, don't they?

(500 LEDs on minuscule power? No big deal at all, just ask Pirate Bill ! )