Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[a.king21]

Rick pointed me to one of his students:  Here is some info on the effect of grounding.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAxB-Dtl1U

[rickfriedrich]

If the drama is over now maybe I'll share more along the lines of what people were asking about.

You will learn now why I made the kit with low power and a sensitive led to learn the importance of the subtle changes. The objective was extremely important but would be ignored and ridiculed by people who have the limited understanding of conventional theory and want to jump to conclusions. It is up to all of you who actually want to learn this to now pay attention. Do your homework.

While you guys think I am evading questions and demonstrations, I have very good reasons for everything I am doing here. For example, I intentionally have avoided getting too technical because I never want to give the impression that any of this is too difficult for common people. Too often people speak over most people's heads so that it just becomes prestige jargon. I know several of you have accused me of just being ignorant because I have always chosen to talk plainly and in the simplest language. I also avoid heavy dependence upon meters in demonstrations because I don't want to create the impression that they always have to be connected. In many cases the meters affect the processes significantly. Those who do not have OU experience will not appreciate that because they are not usually working with subtle changes.

I said that G only gave a basic theory of phasing and what is possible in a resonant tank circuit. I said there is actually a lot more to it. I didn't have time to fully address it other than just tell him to consider the results. Of course that is not satisfactory. But I realized that if I shared the following then most people would get lost. So that is why I wrote what I wrote. So that everyone could benefit from my answer, which is really all that is necessary in that debate. However, I will now explain some of my brief statements that I know you all just passed over thinking I was just rambling. I do have a reason for everything I wrote here. I also mentioned what MIT physics professor Walter Lewin said about all college text books, that they were all wrong on this subject of faraday's Law and Kirchhoff loop rule and the conservation of energy. While college level books are just oversimplifications in addressing the real world, the following book is above college level and is not the case. Unfortunately most people only have a college level physics understanding so they never learn about the bigger picture. This is specifically showing that there are other factors and forces at work than what G was claiming to be the extent of the matter. We will see exactly why he was mistaken, limiting what could be possible in a resonant tank circuit, and thus assuming always an under unity result (also why he assumed the input had to decrease with the loading). So now I will fulfill his conditions of hoping that he would learn more than just the limitations of conventional theory and find the means for believing and experiencing OU. So let me know enlarge with quotes from the following book that is one of my important text books which Lewin would have been thinking of:

Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism by TERENCE W. BARRETT (see the book on Amazon)
https://epdf.pub/topological-foundations-of-electromagnetism.html
"Maxwell's equations are foundational to electromagnetic theory. They are the cornerstone of a myriad of technologies and are basic to the understanding of innumerable effects. Yet there are a few effects or phenomena that cannot be explained by the conventional Maxwell theory. This book examines those anomalous effects and shows that they can be interpreted by a Maxwell theory that is subsumed under gauge theory. Moreover, in the case of these few anomalous effects, and when Maxwell's theory finds its place in gauge theory, the conventional Maxwell theory must be extended, or generalized, to a non-Abelian form."

"The tried-and-tested conventional Maxwell theory is of Abelian form. It is correctly and appropriately applied to, and explains, the great majority of cases in electromagnetism. What, then, distinguishes these cases from the aforementioned anomalous phenomena? It is the thesis of this book that it is the topology of the spatio temporal situation that distinguishes the two classes of effects or phenomena, and the topology that is the final arbiter of the correct choice of group algebra — Abelian or non-Abelian — to use in describing an effect."

Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations
"The conventional Maxwell theory is a classical linear theory in whichthe scalar and vector potentials appear to be arbitrary and defined byboundary conditions and choice of gauge. The conventional wisdom in engineering is that potentials have only mathematical, not physical, significance. However, besides the case of quantum theory, in which it is well known that the potentials are physical constructs, there are a number of physical phenomena —both classical and quantum-mechanical— which indicate that the Aμ fields, μ=0,1,2,3, do possess physical significance as global-to-local operators or gauge fields, in precisely constrained topologies."
"A number of physical effects strongly suggest that the Maxwell field theory of electromagnetism is incomplete (too long to quote here)...."

"Formerly, treatment of the Aμ potentials as anything more than mathematical conveniences was prevented by their obvious lack of gauge invariance. 251,252 However, gauge invariance for theAμpoten-tials results from situations in which fields, firstly, have a historyof separate spatiotemporal conditioning and, secondly, are mappedin a many-to-one, or global-to-local, fashion (in holonomy). Such conditions are satisfied by Aμ potentials with boundary conditions, i.e. the usual empirically encountered situation. Thus, with the correct geometry and topology (i.e. with stated boundary conditions) the Aμ potentials always have physical meaning. This indicates that Maxwell's theory can be extended by the appropriate use of topological and gauge-symmetrical concepts. The Aμ potentials are local operators mapping global spatio temporal conditions onto the local e.m. fields. The effect of this operation is measurable as a phase change, if there is a second, comparative mapping of differentially conditioned fields in a many-to-one (global-to-local) summation. With coherent fields, the possibility of measurement(detection) after the second mapping is maximized. The conventional Maxwell theory is incomplete due to the neglect of (1) a definition of the Aμ potentials as operators on the local intensity fields dependent on gauge, topology, geometry and global boundary conditions; and of (2) a definition of the constitutive relations between medium-independent fields and the topology of the medium.b Addressing these issues extends the conventional Maxwell theory to cover physical phenomena which cannot be presently explained by that theory."

"the A field was banished from playing the central role in Maxwell's theory and relegated to being a mathematical (but not physical) auxiliary. This banishment took place during the interpretation of Maxwell's theory by the Maxwellians,12i.e. chiefly by Heaviside, Fitzgerald, Lodge and Hertz."

"Both Heaviside and Poynting agreed that the function of a wire is as a sink into which energy passes from the medium (ether) and is convected into heat. For them, wires conduct electricity with the Poynting vector pointing at right angles to the conducting wire (cf. Ref. 19, Sec. 27-5). The modern conventional view on conduction in wires is similar, but modern theory is not straightforward about where this energy goes, yet still retains Poynting's theorem. The energy flows, not through a current-carrying wire itself, but through the medium (ether) around it — or, rather, through whatever energy-storing substance a modern theorist imagines exists in the absence of the ether."

"But all dynamics were banished by Hertz. Hertz banished even the stresses and strains of the medium (ether) and was vigorously opposed in this by the British Maxwellians.12 Hertz even went far beyond his mentor, Helmholtz, in his austere operational formulation. Nonetheless, the Hertz orientation finally prevailed, and the modern "Maxwell theory" is today a system of equations describing electrodynamics which has lost its dynamical basis."

"1.  Introduction
There are a number of reasons for questioning the completeness of the conventionally interpreted Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. It is well known that there is an arbitrariness in the definition of the A vector and scalar potentials, which, nevertheless, have been found very useful when used in calculations with boundary conditions known.253 The reasons for questioning completeness are due to experimental evidence (Sec. 3), theoretical (Sec. 4) and pragmatic(Sec. 5)."
The evidence is too lengthy and technical to quote here...

[Void]

Hi Guys,first many thanks to Rick for all his great work and publishing it for free here !
Well, a friend of mine has also his Resonance Kit and he got it to work in OU mode...
So, also he mentioned to me, that some posters over here seem to

deliberately make bad videos that do not work !

So here seem to be now very many trolls, who are trying to combat free energy for what ever reasons they have...

So to the other people I can only say, don´t trust everything you see here, if some experimenters do videos
and say, it does not work... Better try it yourself !

Also this way, you can learn much more from it, than only watching videos from others, who might also
have bad or broken measurement equipment or no good scope or wrong adjusted scope heads, etc, etc...

But my friend will send me a video, so I can see, what he has done so far with the Kit from Rick.

Stay tuned.

Many thanks again to Rick Friedrich for his great work !

Regards, Stefan ( Admin).

Hi Stefan. I am very surprised by your comment here. After all these years of many people
claiming to have a COP > 1 here, and time and time again of it turning out to be mistaken claims
due to many people who make such claims not understanding even the basics of making proper measurements,
or people just being very delusional, or scammers, you of all people should know that what the majority claim is 'OU' is actually
nothing of the kind, and the other remaining small percentage are usually things that can't be checked out fully due to missing
important details.

If someone hasn't self-looped the circuit and got it self-sustaining, then that person is in no reasonable position at all to be
making claims about 'OU'. There are just too many ways that a person can go wrong even in the rare case where that person
has some decent understanding about making proper measurements and also understands well the many pitfalls which can
be encountered in doing proper measurements. To call members here with many years of experience in this 'OU' experimentation
area 'trolls' for pointing out the very obvious flaws in Rick's claims is mind boggling to me.

Lighting up some LED bulbs without at least attempting to do proper input and output power measurements fools
a lot of people out there as LEDs are very efficient these days and only a relatively small amount of input power can make them
light up fairly brightly. This fools a lot of people out there with little experience and/or little understanding
of electronics. People here are 100% right to be very skeptical of claims where lighting of some LED bulbs is
being shown but no decent attempt is being made and shown in regards to doing self-looping testing of the setup.
The wattage rating on LED bulbs can be very misleading. Actual power consumption of the LEDs in a LED
bulb can be quite a lot lower than whatever wattage rating may be indicated on a LED bulb. I think that fools
a lot of people as well. They see some 5 Watt or 10 Watt rating on a LED bulb or whatever, and find they can
light the LEDs quite brightly at less than 1 Watt input or whatever and think that they have hit the mother lode.
The problem is those wattage ratings for the LED bulbs appear to be quite misleading in many cases.

It is for very good reason that people here with a lot of experience are being quite skeptical of Rick's claims, and
anyone with any reasonable amount of experience at all at this type of experimentation should be fully aware of
why self-loop testing is so critical in this area of experimentation. There have been just so many cases here and on Youtube,
etc., of people making incorrect assumptions and making improper measurements for various reasons, or leaving out important
measurements, or overlooking other important factors which are throwing off their results.

It is just too easy for people to make mistakes in measurements or to otherwise overlook important factors which are skewing
their results. If there is no reasonably done self-looping testing shown, then it is perfectly reasonable to take it as more unfounded 'OU' claims
to add to the mountain. People here should feel no obligation to test such unfounded claims if the claimant has not demonstrated a reasonable
self-looping test. That should really be a given here at this point. Sorry Stephan. Just pointing out the reality of the situation. Many experimenters
here have spent many many hours in the past testing many of the 'OU' claims that frequently pop up here here only to find after wasting many
hours of time and effort and expense that the person making the 'OU' claim made major mistakes in their measurements, or left out important
measurements, or made incorrect assumptions, etc. Someone having an expensive scope or expensive multimeters, etc. in no way at all
guarantees that they know how to properly use them to make proper measurements in all sorts of different situations.

If there is something to what Rick is saying, then it should stand up to self-looping testing. There are probably at least a few people here who could
help Rick with setting up such proper self-looping tests if he really wanted to understand how his setups are truly performing, but that does not appear
to be the case at all. Quite the opposite. When people here get called trolls for pointing out the obvious flaws in someone's claims, then something is
very wrong. I will fade back into the background now. I have had my say. 

[Hoppy]

Stefan,
Thank you for your apology. I have no intention of providing you with a copy of my passport, so I guess I'm stuck here as a fully fledged member.

I take exception to being branded a troll just because, like others on this forum, I expect the presentation of good quality technical information to backup OU claims.
Anyway, like Void, I will now sink into the background for the time being to let RF continue to dominate this thread with his sermons.

[AlienGrey]

There is this statement it's a distortion of the truth, re The retired Turkish university lecturer definition.

"Both Heaviside and Poynting agreed that the function of a wire is as a sink into which energy passes from the medium (ether) and is convected into heat. For them, wires conduct electricity with the Poynting vector pointing at right angles to the conducting wire (cf. Ref. 19, Sec. 27-5). The modern conventional view on conduction in wires is similar, but modern theory is not straightforward about where this energy goes, yet still retains Poynting's theorem. The energy flows, not through a current-carrying wire itself, but through the medium (ether) around it — or, rather, through whatever energy-storing substance a modern theorist imagines exists in the absence of the ether."

Be aware that it takes time from the moment of switch on the electron to rise to the out side if of the conductor this time can be put to good use.