Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[Hoppy]

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.

Rick,
So, maybe at last the penny is finally dropping for you. 

[rickfriedrich]

G,
There was no way to make your first statement in saying "seem". How could it seem to you a negative result when you just asked about meters? If I were to judge that picture and videos as you and others judge other videos and pictures then it would seem to be extra output. I do not go by videos and pictures, and did not intend to prove anything to any of you or youtubers over the internet, nor to my students.

We were actually looking at the relationships. These guys have already proven to themselves these things, at least some of them. On one private forum with all of them one of them actually has many coils and bright bulbs running in the same way on the cover picture. Needless to say I don't need to prove anything to him.  But these guys know this kit and these bulbs enough to know that they were much brighter than they would be if we divided up the input energy. The science point was that the bulbs were not getting dimmer with each added coil, either of the big or small one. I started stacking the big coils on top of each other with the same result.

Sometimes when I placed them in certain places the power the results got worse, as we find with Itsu, where his input and output goes down, or where his input goes up with adding coils. But we moved the coils so that wouldn't happen. The point was that I could keep adding coils and the input would go down while the lights stayed the same or got a bit brighter. If I had wanted to make this some proof time I would have spent all night setting that up to do more of what I did in California, or where the input went way down in Indiana to 0.004A @ 4V, or O or negative.

Now I did show the light meter and many other meters and explained that you could use it. There were many demonstrations and that was one was about how many coils could be added while the lights stayed the same. When I placed the coils in all the space around the transmitter then they could see that I really could add as many coils as could fill up that space. And I already gave you the numbers when you divide the input 0.72W into 15 big bulbs and 74 small bulbs. The light would be a mere flicker and yet the lights were blinding and what you would have with 0.5W on the big ones and roughly 20ma on the smaller ones. I did it enough that it was evident to all. I was not trying to make a scientific OU claim here. Again, it was about showing the relationships on a large level. Obviously it didn't seem like under unity to them, or to anyone looking at the photo or video, or even to you.

What you are trying to do is discredit me because I didn't do what you wanted me to do. And this was not purposeful at my meeting because I did not know you at all and it wasn't my intention to use the light meter. I have about 2 months worth of information to share in three 11 hour days, so I have to pick and choose what gets done according to what people want/need. Not one of them needed that demonstration as they can do that at home themselves, and they were competent to judge the bulbs (most of them came to several meetings already so I try not to repeat the same things). I explained that at a previous time.

Now when I did the video I purposely did that however, because it is important to bring this out for various reasons. I ended up proving my point to all of you, even though I cannot prove OU over the internet as the video was titled, I did prove my point with the video: that people will believe or disbelieve such a video claim according to their bias. Not me however, I don't do that as that is very destructive to yourself and others. I made the video with just enough light to make it obvious or seem to be OU to make you guys squirm. Then I forced my point home by doing that. That you cannot believe OU over the internet. But I also left out the light meter test so as to give you grounds to disbelieve the video and still prove my more important point. Yes it is more important that you learn to stop this unscientific practice of confirmation bias than it is to believe in OU because of a video.

Again, you manipulate the boundaries to your own advantage. And that is exactly what the mainstream people do. The draw a circle and say you can only be inside of the circle. We will not consider outside the circle. You say that because I didn't do one meter reading that it was not science: "it is not science Rick." What makes that not science? When you go to the lab day after day, is it not science because you didn't do one experiment yet? This is a fallacy and you need to withdraw that claim here. I have seen you do that once so let's see you do that again.

Again, you are telling me it is not science if I don't satisfy you in what you want to see. That makes no sense. If I said some exact claim about the brightness of each bulb and failed to show it then you can say that was a guess and not science. But I didn't do that. Instead, the guys had enough experience to know what those bulbs do. Again, if you divide up the input into 15 then these big bulbs have a very faint glow. So yes it was demonstrated to them without a meter, just like me running the boat for three years didn't need a meter (but I always had 4 or 5 different ones anyway).

What you are doing is looking for a loophole. You say it was not science but it actually was. I demonstrated that I could add as many coils in that area with the results that I predicted and repeated to everyone's satisfaction. They even helped set it up. The secondary point would be the amount of light abundantly exceeded the input energy. But lest you think I was just being sloppy or ignorant, I spent hours going over technical details about all kinds of meters. I have hundreds of meters that cost a lot of money. And we have professors, physicists, EEs and nuclear engineers at those meetings. There were only a few hobbyists. I have to have something for everyone and that is what I did.

You have to learn to differentiate between lab testing and real world applications. You guys don't have real world experience with this technology because you don't understand it yet and haven't experienced it yet. But I am dealing with people in the real world. Not just hobbyists but research teams and top engineers. They are not looking for some 5 minute meter test but how to adapt such systems to their needs. They want to see real devices, like boats running in water, or how to maximize the gains. It is not really about the if that you guys are still speculating about, it is about the what, how, and how much. But that is in the real world with real people and not in this fantasy cyberland where people are selective in what they want to believe and where they have double standards.

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 inputpower to know what power level is involved at the certain brigthnesses of the LEDs?
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. 

[rickfriedrich]

Yes, I was just mentioning that. It is easier than self-looping as the batteries are electrically connected so looping needs additional processes.
And you can also do this with what I call my third stage process in the Loving Paths teaching. Ideally you can make the motor a prime mover and run loads like motors off of each negative impedance in a series chain. But then you can go out from there again and again just like a) in figure 5 in True Wireless as I mentioned. I did show that at a Goshen Indiana meeting 3 or so years ago. Not endlessly but with several motors, after properly inverting them...

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.

[rickfriedrich]

Nick,
Your humor never ceases to amaze me. You have been anything but polite. OK, maybe when asking that question. Anyway, I have given you many things to work with already, and I said I will have to wrap up these various points before I can consider satisfying your every whim in this respect. Again, I am working on a big presentation that will lay the groundwork for this. But it is important to settle some of these points here and not just pass over things.

There are many claims that have been made. The resonant tank circuit with a gate driver. G has brought that subject up in a lengthy post and I am working on it bit by bit. Or you can do an impulse motor like a fan which is old news, and which you brought up. I have videos on it with the exact details you are asking about. So stop with all the alarmism will you!
Why doesn't Rick do a reality show and we see him brushing his teeth or eating his food.  You are just making up stuff. I did do that. You are just writing this to convince others that I haven't. This is getting old. Next it will be, why didn't Rick make a video yet, or produce a kit, or demonstrate publically, or bother to appear on this forum to answer any and every question. Why why why does Nick try and fool people on this forum?

"Where is that shown?" Nick, in the real world!

   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...

[NickZ]

   Is there any of my questions that you can answer???   We are not asking for you to show us brushing your teeth.
   We are asking for you to measure the output current. Is that so hard?  Not just more excuses for not doing so.   We are all holding our breath....   Glad that you like my humor. But, I'm starting to turn blue.
    I was not talking about noisy impulse motors or fan builds. Not not here for that.
   NickZ