Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

G,
I am honored that you have taken the time to do something along these lines. I haven't read it yet but wanted to say thank you. Hopefully it will be a good post.
I haven't avoided anyone's questions. I have written a whole book worth of replies to people. You have said I didn't respond to you when I did. Maybe not in the way you expected. There were many questions I asked you that were rather fundamental. They may appear to be negative but really they would be very helpful for everyone if you answered them. You bowed out after these questions were asked and then came back a week later and never answered them.

Rick,
You have 'demanded' answers from me on certain questions while you avoid  some of my questions to answer, so fifty-fifty... 
And I note that I prepared most of this answer this morning,  so your last but one post of #1192 above did not exist.   
Gyula

[NickZ]

   I have politely asked repeatedly for a current diagram or schematic that clearly shows all the component values, wire sizes, coil sizes, capacitors, led values, and any other important information. I'm still waiting...   I was referred to the Rectenna tech. Why?  Is there no clear diagram?
   Although it seams that Rick's set up is rather simple, and should be easy to replicate. But, there are many questions unanswered. There are no pictures of what the device should actually look like, no videos showing scope shots readings, or voltage points, (that we can see). No step by step building advice. Like do this, then do this, then do that, etz...   No wonder no one can obtain the same results. That information can be placed on a single post on this thread. Why is it not being made available???
    And, why does Rick not measure the output??? Or follow any of the simple tests that forum members have asked for?
Why Rick?   How many coils does it take to be able to see and measure OU. One, three, ten?
   Does the input drop to 0?  Where is that shown?   Build it... and they will come...   or something like that.
   Well, I wouldn't want to get hurt building such a dangerous device the "wrong way". 
   So I guess that, I'd better wait and see...

[itsu]

I got my 10 satellite coil ready, all with their own pcb containing a FWBR (4x bAT46 Schottky) a 220uF cap and a 10K resistor, see picture.

The first tests will be to measure the input power into the big coil and adding satellite coils to see how they impact the input and what their combined output will be.

I tried to maintain for the increasing number of coils their voltages the same, like 1st coil 45V, 2 coils both 36V, 3 coils 30V, etc.

I then used the P=U²/R formula to calculate the power across the 10K resistor and add those together.

The data can be seen in the spreadsheet below in both numbers and a graph.
Sorry for not having the same colors for data and graph.

It shows that the input power gradually decreases when adding more and more coils.
The battery voltage increases slightly (less load), the current decreases (less load) and the HV decreases (lower Q?)


The combined satellite coils (1 to 10) show a fairly even load but never reach a level higher then the input power.

My guess is that the input power will flatten as more coils are added, but the lines will never cross.

The current probe in the ground line never showed anything above 0 mA (average).

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih5yq6SjXdw

Diagram included
     
Regards Itsu

[rickfriedrich]

G,
Rather than doing one long post I will break this up because who knows how long this will take, and they are separate topics.

This indeed is the line of interest. So you have just downgraded your statement to mean that you have no reason whatsoever to believe OU exists. All you have done then is said what everyone on earth would have to say, because you cannot prove otherwise. You cannot prove the law of conservation is a universal.

So here is your anticlimactic downgrade shift:
"can surely be"
and now:
"there can be"
We can add to that "is possible".

So this is unfortunate to hear. For the words "can surely be" is based upon positive evidence not mere hope as the words "there can be" mean. As I suspected there was no rational reason for you to believe OU was possible.

And this statement appeared to all of us differently, that you were saying that because you had substantial reason to believe it. Like some form of gain somewhere. I was hoping to draw this out of you so that you could share that and we could build upon it. But now we see it was just the mere possibility. So you may as well say that "there can be" pink unicorns (unicorns actually exist) because we cannot be at all places in the earth at once to know that there isn't. Not the best analogy but you get the point.

My point is that the way you wrote this is rather misleading when you could have just said what you finally wrote today. Just said I hope it exists, and who knows because we probably haven't learned everything yet. But this "surely can be" makes it appear to everyone that you have a solid reason for believing it is possible.

You see G, that is not scientific to do what you did here. I put this back in your face because you end this section with saying I am not scientific. And you have to know that I don't do science over the chat forums because you can't do science in relation to one person or another with videos. You said "surely can be" in reference to OU and in the context of scientific questions and answers. But it really was just a completely baseless hope. What grounds for hope are there, because a mere possibility in the face of all your insistence upon everything that OU is based upon is surely not a surely can be.

You are very precise in your wording because of your training, and that is the only reason I jumped over this and am now going into this detail. If it was most other people here I would just say well that's because they speak ambiguously and loosely. But "surely can be" gives the impression to everyone here that you are on the side of OU because of some substantial reason. I mean really, you are rigorous in applying your theories. I don't find you to say such things and mean mere hope with absolutely no grounds for the hope.

It actually gave me hope that if you shared this substantial reason for your "surely can be" that we could build upon it as I mentioned. But instead it says to me that you merely pacified everyone, because if they learned that you really have no reason to believe in OU then they would be less likely to consider your analysis. So it is basically like someone looking for spiritual help to consult an expert agnostic (not atheist by analogy because you do not disbelieve OU). I think people would rather consult someone who already believes in OU. The belief would be real and not mere hope. Belief is based upon tangible reasons, like processes that make OU possible, gains seen that amount to the same, or analogies from biology, chemistry, mechanics or music. Maybe you saw a piano as a real gain and thought that it would make sense that in electrical matters there could be the same gain. But no. Nothing like that. We just have G coming into this with 100% mainstream theory who will apply that theory to everything he measures, the tools he measures with, and everything he assumes.

Well I'm glad that is finally settled. It is really important to know where someone is coming from. What if we found out that everyone on this forum was merely hopeful of OU but assumed mainstream theory was universal? Maybe that would explain why it just goes around in circles.

Anyway, this is what I wrote back then in my reply to you: https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg535318/#msg535318
I show scepticism with any extraordinary claim which is not proved in practice with measurements correctly, and this latter is not the case yet with your setup.  I never wrote that obtaining excess energy is not possible at all.  I do have an open mind and I believe that a circuit setup can surely be built which can produce extra energy compared to its input we feed in. 
So far your setup in question does not seem to produce any extra output.  Did you use your light meter for checking LED bulbs brightness in front of the 18 people?  Did you calibrate your LED bulbs in advance with measured DC input power to know what power level is involved at the certain brigthnesses of the LEDs?"
So why I believe that extra enegy is possible to obtain from a device / circuit is that not everything has been discovered in science and there can be unknown anomalies to be discovered and utilized.  And what I put in bold above is what you neglected to answer.  It is ok that 18 people were present but if they watched the brigthness of the LEDs by their naked eye it is not science Rick. 

[NickZ]

   Itsu:   Thanks for all that information, and the schematic. That helps me at least, to understand what is being done here.
   I don't know if Rick would agree on your build, or not, but it would help if he would let us know just what is not being done right, in order to see what he says is possible, such as more out than in.
   Thanks again,                         NickZ