Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

Yeah, but was any of it really JB's? 

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

[Hoppy]

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.

How are you measuring work done?

[rickfriedrich]

Usual ways. But I consider all types of work, not merely electrical. Here is what I just wrote at OUR along those lines however. It is just one paragraph of what I wrote:

"Yes there are different kinds of loads that are more or less appropriate. Any of the bigger LED bulbs have capacitors that can be measured and easily calculated. So once a proper filter like that really smooths out the output to a constant current condition, that is the only place where you can properly measure power. Because power meters will never accurately measure or predict the energy of an impulse because impulse is entirely different than constant current and is nonconservative and results in gains when there is a suitable collector/load. So this is why metering is conditional as to where you place the meter. If your load is directly impulsed then the meter reading will not match the total work that can be done. That is an interesting observation which we have shown countless engineers with their very meters--even when they have the best meters in the world. So scientists would rather measure a constant current loop, and that is what I have been saying. You can monitor the input power, and any and all final loops with loads when they are constant current. But to measure elsewhere in addition will only show that power meter measurements do not reveal actual energy flows and that they can't predict the amount of work that can be done. This is absolutely critical to understand and that is why so many have failed in this research. They just assume that the power measurements are always indicative of output possibilities. But power measurements are only good for a closed loop to indicate how fast you are killing the associated source charge. And yet a power meter can measure some power on a completely open system that does not discharge the source charge, so that is another thing to deal with. The point is that you just need to properly evaluate what actual work is being done in the real world without depending exclusively on power meters. It is just one circular argument because it needs to be proved that such meters are absolutely authoritative in that way. If they are so assumed, as so many do, then naturally this whole forum is a waste of time. So the first principles of free energy research are the associated ideas that distinguish constant current, closed looped, linear and nonlinear resistive processes from impulse or resonance open nonlinear reactive systems. These are fundamentally different even though we do what Kron's lifelong search resulted in, that the two are done together. The environmental inputs are not measurable as they are directly from the aether. As such they will never be acceptable even if you have later outputs after such processes that are measurable gains. I hope you understand this. I have never advocated a no meter testing, but metering has to be more carefully understood in this context. We can always run loads directly and consider the work done. In that case the load itself is a negative resistor where the energy converges into the load. Or we can take that load and loop it with a resistive load in a constant current loop to satisfy the need for metering. Without making that distinction then you fail to understand OU claims and systems. So even if metering shows no or little reading to a negative resistor, it can be helpful to show everyone that it is a limited tool that can only be used under a special case condition (even if that is what people are only used to)."

How are you measuring work done?

[MoFo]

Because power meters will never accurately measure or predict the energy of an impulse because impulse is entirely different than constant current and is nonconservative and results in gains when there is a suitable collector/load.

I am convinced 

[Hoppy]

Rick,
Thanks for your reply but how do you measure work done. For example how did you determine that your big electric boat was running OU and what instrumentation did you use?

What is your opinion on the use of oscilloscopes for measuring pulsed and complex waveforms?