Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

T,
No reason to insult here. No one is forcing you to read. If you want details you can read them. If you want ambiguity then insist on few words.
Here is an example of ambiguity. When I said endlessly, I meant endless motors added. That is the context of what you said, replicate the output again and again. I was saying I showed that with several motors in a chain.
As for your school lesson with words, not all places in an OU system will show power measurements. The only place it will show it is when you are using a closed loop that destroys the source charge. So you can do that after a process when you are looping a regular load, but not all loads will show power measurements either. I don't know about your experience with OU, but it appears you may not agree with this. I don't really care about what the physics books say these days. I agree with Walter Lewin that all the college level text are wrong. So if you want to talk about higher level physics then that is fine. Here is some light reading for you to consider along those lines:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9812779965/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

Why not endlessly, if it is truly OU?
Perhaps we have different definitions of terms. To me, OU (overunity) in this context means that a device, over a suitable time interval, produces more energy measured in Joules at its output, than it takes energy in Joules to run it at the input.
Joules out > Joules in, that is what I and I think most others would consider OU.

What say you to this, and please try to not turn it into another wall of text.

We measure energy in Joules, we measure real power in Watts (Joules per Second), we measure reactive power in VARs, we measure current in Amperes and voltage in Volts. Or their powers of ten, like kilovolts, etc.
And energy is the ability to perform work, and work is force times distance, and so on, common engineering and physics definitions, no wordplay or "alternative facts".

Right? Can we agree on some common terms here?

[rickfriedrich]

T,
You are a little presumptuous here. I have been engaged with many of these gentlemen  here for about a month and have ongoing things we have been working out or otherwise. You just jumped in here and put up some video links expecting some response from me. I don't know you or how relevant your videos are. I have been busy with these guys and our talk. You are jumping in here expecting me to focus on it and frankly I have just not had the time yet. I barely watched the one and would need to carefully watch it again and think about what you are really wanting with all this. But by reacting this way it is not inviting. The other guys who posted videos have had the patience to let people get to them. There has been a flood of posts that have been more pressing that you jumping in here and say look over here.

As for what kind of OU, I have mentioned several. I will be doing a big presentation when I get the time for that which should help.

I appreciate the invitation and will get to it when I get some time. So rather than spending time to search for these video links again, I'll respond to your below point.

There isn't a lot of talk about J and W and are you trying to be insulting here?

As for the hypo, I guess it depends on if you are making a trick question. It appears you are looking for a setup or you are just telling me about some OU system.
Some of the statements are ambiguous. What is the load. You say compatible. That doesn't tell me if it has a low voltage cut off. If this is a trick question then I would say the battery half discharges because the load has a cut off voltage. This is compatible with the battery and: "run the load until the battery is so depleted that the load does not run any more at all". So then you connect the battery to a buckboost in the box and discharge the battery down all the way until it fully discharges. You never said the battery was fully discharged the first run, just till the load stops. So that is most likely what you are doing because no OU system would do this sort of thing. I mean, if you really depleted the battery all the way to zero then why would an OU system in the box run at first but not for good.

So it appears to be just a voltage drop situation with some kind of boost situation.

Do I win the prize?

I'm still trying to figure out what kind of OU we are talking about here. I've given three examples that I think are showing similar things to what you are talking about, but apparently you don't have time to look closely at what I presented or to think about it very much. Are they OU, by your definition, or not? I am not talking about proving anything, just take what is presented at face value (since anyone can replicate it and all necessary info is provided) and give a yes or no answer, and if "no" tell why not and why your system doesn't have the same issues.
And perhaps all this talk about Joules and Watts and other dead heads is too confusing for the unwashed masses. So consider this hypothetical:I have a battery and a load compatible with the battery. The battery starts out fully charged. I connect them, and run the load until the battery is so depleted that the load does not run any more at all.
Now I connect my black box in between the battery and the load. Voila! The load starts running again, and runs and runs and runs for a long time, maybe even longer than it ran the first time from the fully charged battery! But it does eventually stop.
No, there is no battery in my black box, just a few common electronic components, and of course it won't work at all without some kind of battery or capacitor connected to the input.
Is this OU, by your definition, or not? Please, no walls of text.

[TinselKoala]

T,
No reason to insult here. No one is forcing you to read. If you want details you can read them. If you want ambiguity then insist on few words.

That is what I wanted when I asked you not to post Yet Another wall of text without actually answering a question.

Here is an example of ambiguity. When I said endlessly, I meant endless motors added. That is the context of what you said, replicate the output again and again. I was saying I showed that with several motors in a chain.

And that is what I meant too. Why not endlessly? Why did you not simply go on connecting motor after motor, with a little bit of extra load at each stage? It is because your system does not actually output more energy in Joules than it takes to run it, stage by stage, and you will eventually reach a stage where an additional motor will not run. And this will be sooner rather than later.

As for your school lesson with words, not all places in an OU system will show power measurements. The only place it will show it is when you are using a closed loop that destroys the source charge. So you can do that after a process when you are looping a regular load, but not all loads will show power measurements either.

Any system can have its input energy measured in Joules. Any system can have its output energy measured in Joules. This is true whether it is "self looped", Daisy chained, or just sitting there running itself. Your statement above makes no real sense. Do you even understand how to make proper power measurements? If so, this knowledge is not in evidence in your posts or videos.

I don't know about your experience with OU, but it appears you may not agree with this. I don't really care about what the physics books say these days. I agree with Walter Lewin that all the college level text are wrong. So if you want to talk about higher level physics then that is fine. Here is some light reading for you to consider along those lines:https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9812779965/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

And that pretty much says it all. No need to give answers to questions, no common definitions of what OU actually means, no need to do proper measurements of silly quantities like Joules and Watts,  some incoherent gobbledegook that someone with no electrical engineering experience might pretend to understand... and all those college level texts that trained the engineers who made your computer and more importantly who made the tools to make your computer -- all wrong. And you, on the other hand, are all right.

[TinselKoala]

T,
You are a little presumptuous here. I have been engaged with many of these gentlemen  here for about a month and have ongoing things we have been working out or otherwise.

And all of those gentlemen know me and understand what I am saying and doing.

You just jumped in here and put up some video links expecting some response from me. I don't know you or how relevant your videos are. I have been busy with these guys and our talk. You are jumping in here expecting me to focus on it and frankly I have just not had the time yet. I barely watched the one and would need to carefully watch it again and think about what you are really wanting with all this.

But you expect people to read your walls of text and watch your interminable videos, even though your rate of disseminating true information is very low. Obviously, your cup is so full that any additional info will overflow and be lost.

But by reacting this way it is not inviting. The other guys who posted videos have had the patience to let people get to them. There has been a flood of posts that have been more pressing that you jumping in here and say look over here.
As for what kind of OU, I have mentioned several. I will be doing a big presentation when I get the time for that which should help.

But the "several" kinds of OU you have mentioned do not correspond to Joules in < Joules out, which is the only kind that actually matters.  And all I did with my videos is to ask you one question: OU, or not, according to YOUR definition. But you won't even do that much.

I appreciate the invitation and will get to it when I get some time. So rather than spending time to search for these video links again, I'll respond to your below point.

There isn't a lot of talk about J and W and are you trying to be insulting here?

No, I am just trying to see if we speak the same language. I think the chances are slim, but I'm willing to give you an opportunity to prove me wrong.

As for the hypo, I guess it depends on if you are making a trick question. It appears you are looking for a setup or you are just telling me about some OU system.
Some of the statements are ambiguous. What is the load. You say compatible. That doesn't tell me if it has a low voltage cut off. If this is a trick question then I would say the battery half discharges because the load has a cut off voltage. This is compatible with the battery and: "run the load until the battery is so depleted that the load does not run any more at all". So then you connect the battery to a buckboost in the box and discharge the battery down all the way until it fully discharges. You never said the battery was fully discharged the first run, just till the load stops. So that is most likely what you are doing because no OU system would do this sort of thing. I mean, if you really depleted the battery all the way to zero then why would an OU system in the box run at first but not for good.

So it appears to be just a voltage drop situation with some kind of boost situation.

Do I win the prize?

It seems to me that you have described rather exactly all of the "self sustaining" systems that you have ever offered.

For example the Clarendon Dry Pile has been ringing its little bell since 1840 with few interruptions. But none of your self sustaining systems actually self sustain. They all eventually stop, and when the battery is examined it is found to be drained, so "something went wrong" even though the system is clearly OU. Right?

Please correct me if I am wrong and point me to a demonstration of one of your self sustaining systems that is still running continously after... well we don't need to do it for a hundred and seventy eight years. Just a couple of months should be enough.

[TinselKoala]

Re the capabilities of the IXDD mosfet driver:

T,
I shared that already. One of my students has a video showing that with the kit a year ago.

Why, then, do you now bother with the Function Generator at all?

Let me check my records to see when I demonstrated this kind of self-resonant wireless power transmitter using e-field feedback, and lighting incandescent bulbs with the wirelessly received output.  Oh... has it been that long already? June of 2017. That's over two years ago.
And using EM feedback and a phase-locked loop to maintain locked in resonance ... that was way back in 2015. SO maybe your students are paying more attention than you are!