Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[Hoppy]

Why would an output that is 1.5 times that of normal not be amazing and free energy or OU? This is self-evident. You just ignore that and spew your repeated lies over and over hoping that you can continue to detract people from the truth.

So, if I managed to improve the COP of a device by 1.5 times from its 'normal running efficiency, then I would have OU by your reckoning. So, now I understand how you define OU and why you cannot understand why very few of us on this thread understand you. Onwards and upwards Rick. 

[AlienGrey]

So, if I managed to improve the COP of a device by 1.5 times from its 'normal running efficiency, then I would have OU by your reckoning. So, now I understand how you define OU and why you cannot understand why very few of us on this thread understand you. Onwards and upwards Rick. 

Hoppy you want to self loop look at the JB video he shows you how to do that!
your pm is stopping you from getting the latest info!

PS I just know this Newman motor / window motor is going to be a dead duck in the water ! 

[Hoppy]

Hoppy you want to self loop look at the JB video he shows you how to do that!
your pm is stopping you from getting the latest info!

PS I just know this Newman motor / window motor is going to be a dead duck in the water ! 

Nah, don't need to cos Rick said so. Got all JB's stuff. 

[rickfriedrich]

H,
This is not what I am saying. Efficiency of a motor is not the same as unity. You have your circuit loop with the motor in the circle requiring so much energy from the input. It is outputting so much work over time as a result. The work resulting is compared with the input given and that is where you have the understanding of COP. Ratings of some of these motors in sometimes given as 96% around so that really isn't much to worry about. If we had 80% efficient motors then that would be more of an issue in these considerations. But practically speaking, if it takes a certain amount of energy over time to do a certain amount of actual work, then if I have 1.5 times the work done (or specifically 1.5 times the total work done--which would include the losses on the primary side of the system--so heat production as included). 1.5 is just an arbitrary figure to make it more obvious than 1.01 would be.

I have made this very clear for a long time. The problem is that you guys haven't wanted to listen but just keep assuming the worst or whatever you want. A student of mine has followed all of this and made a document of the exchange and that can be seen. Again, the debate specifically was about this very thing. You guys were saying that only a self-running system was OU, which would require actually more than 2 times to accomplish. I said all along, who made up that definition when any output over unity is above or over unity. 1.01 would be as the OUR pdf mentions. Or any beneficial work done over and above what is thought to be possible or expect from a given circuit with it's particular parts. It is really that simple. But you guys have actually caused the confusion by insisting upon arbitrary expectations. While it is fine to want something self-looping, and I'm all for that, been there, done and do that, it is not necessary to experience or prove free energy or OU to do that. It would be OU to do that, but OU is not limited to that. This is simply a basic logical error to say that just because self-running would be OU, that therefore OU is self-looping. There is no OU = self-running as has been continuously argued over and over, with much mocking of me for denying that. If you draw a big circle on a paper and call it OU. Now draw a smaller circle in it and list that as self-running. So now self-running is a small part of the OU circle, but they are not the same circles. Understand now the mistake you guys have been making. Now you get it why I have been pressing this over and over??? Not only is this a completely wrong definition of OU but it is diverting people from appreciating OU experience in a non-looped way as I have argued so much. You have effectively mocked people for claiming OU when they have had less than 2 times over unity. But as I have said, in the real world 1.5 times is huge. So I see this as a very crafty trick to silence all that good experience of many people but insisting upon more than what is necessary.

This was exactly what I experienced about 14 years ago in these exact debates with skeptics that I eventually won on the forums. But when I settled the points with real facts and demonstrations then they changed their expectations from demanding 2 times to 3 times. That was rather humorous. I did give them that as well however. Once that was done there really wasn't very much of a debate anymore about whether OU was possible. Once in a while someone new would come in and have to realize what had already be established. But from that point on it has always been about perfecting different methods for using this technology. I really didn't have the time anymore to do these forums. And this is really the first time in all those years that I have come back to redo what I did then with the previous generation that is not aware of all that.

So, if I managed to improve the COP of a device by 1.5 times from its 'normal running efficiency, then I would have OU by your reckoning. So, now I understand how you define OU and why you cannot understand why very few of us on this thread understand you. Onwards and upwards Rick. 

[rickfriedrich]

Here is your window motor in the water:
Remote Control Renaissance Free Energy Watercraft https://youtu.be/Nq362E4j4_A
The system has been demonstrated at many of my meetings. Can be run with a bright light or a second battery that can be rotated as needed with the rotating circuit. So I have done this with watercraft for toys, or 26' cabin cruiser, and also with 2 other boats 11' and 14'. Like I said, either self-running with two battery banks (and now the batteries get better over the years and are not consumed), or as in this demonstration while powering another kind of useful load.

Hoppy you want to self loop look at the JB video he shows you how to do that!
your pm is stopping you from getting the latest info!

PS I just know this Newman motor / window motor is going to be a dead duck in the water !