Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[a.king21]

Hi Mr. a king, it seems to me you are in look of a useful task to produce. I have an idea that I would like myself to realize, but frankly, have no knowledge on where to start.
As I have asked Rick, Why not bring up that Atelier from the RICK on "running a small DC motor" from the resonance multiplied voltage / amperage situation?

No it's the opposite.


Anyway some people started a discussion on the device


Re: A-King 21 - build discussion /investigation


You can do tis stuff with the RICK but be careful.

[gyulasun]

Rick,

I quote from your post below:

"You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience."

You know nothing about my background, about my real world experience. 

You also wrote:
"Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results
and work your way backwards."

Are not these 2 sentences in logical fallacy?   

But anyway, I actually started from your measured results, you measured nearly 500 Vpp sine wave voltage
with the HV scope probe in your video across the big red TX coil. I do believe it correct even though I saw it in a
video, ok? 

Now if we divide 500V by 12V we get 41.6, let's round this up to 42 for simplicity, this was the loaded Q of your big
red TX coil. 
What is the Q of a coil? You wrote you do not work with definitions but Q is used for expressing the loss factor of coils.
Q is the ratio between all the resistances included in an LC circuit and the inductive reactance, X_L.  So Q=X_L/R   where
R includes the DC resistance of the coil, the reflected load and loss resistances of coupled coils if there is any coupling
present and includes any generator resistance if the LC circuit is driven from such. 
Now if we express R from the formula, we get R=X_L/Q  You mentioned you used about 152 uH coils that included the
big TX coil too. At your 1.153 MHz operating frequency the TX coil would have an inductive reactance of 
X_L=2Pi*f*L = 6.28*1.153*152 = 1100.6 Ohm, lets round this to 1100 Ohm, ok? 
So the R resistance comes out as R = 1100 / 42 = 26.2 Ohm. Notice that member Seaad used 30 Ohm resistance in his
LTSpice circuit simulator software with 8 RX coils, a close value to this when he showed the simulation results on this setup.

Now what is important here is that your series LC TX circuit with the receiver coils around it as shown in the video puts
26.2 Ohm onto the output pin of the gate driver IC as the actual resistive load at resonance. This then establishes a peak
current of 12V/26.2=0.458 A in the coil, this is the current which creates the EM field around the TX coil. 

We can also estimate this current like this: the effective value of the nearly 500 Vpp voltage you measured across the TX
coil is 500/2.82 = 177.3 Vrms. We know the TX coil has 1100 Ohm inductive reactance at 1.153 MHz, so the coil current
would be I=177.3/1100 = 0.161 A rms and if we multiply this by 2.82 we get 0.454 App, quite close to the current of 0.458 A
calculated from the 26.2 Ohm load resistance the working TX and RX circuits impose on the gate driver output pin. 

You wrote here https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg537003/#msg537003  this:

"I have shown that the fast rate of change results in higher outputs with both my motors and this kit. This is exactly
what Tesla said and demonstrated. Obviously you don't believe either of us. Remember, I used the metered power
supply to run either of these, and see how using the FG with the same power gives lower results, like producing 250V
with 9V input. But when I add the gate driver I get 1300V with the same input approximately. This has a faster rate of
change. I only say all this because these are the parts in the kits." 

I understand that in a working setup shown in the video, the 1.153 MHz AC output from one of the receiver coils might
be used instead of an FG to drive the input of the gate driver IC so the FG could be dispensed with. 

BUT my explanation refers also to your example you often mention like in the above quote: when you drive the TX circuit from
the FG you get 250 V at resonance across either the L or C and when you drive this same TX circuit from the gate driver
you get 1300 V. The explanation I gave includes impedance matching issue when using the FG's 50 Ohm output resistance
and matching is better with the gate driver IC's 1 Ohm or so output resistance.  And there is much less loss across a 1 Ohm
generator resistance than across a 50 Ohm generator resistance. The missing 50-1=49 Ohm is what enables a
much higher  current in the TX coil versus the current the FG would be able to insure and higher coil current does increase
the EM field, ok?  And Tesla used mainly charged up capacitors as voltage sources that had very small equivalent series 
resistances hence the internal loss was also very small. And his fast mechanical switches (often in combinations) determined the
rate of change he mastered to quasi perfection, they did the disruptive dicharges from the (mainly HV) charged up capacitors.   

So it is not the fast rate of change which caused the high voltage across your L or C but the higher current due to much
better impedance matching between the series LC circuit and the output impedance driving the LC circuit.  And this is valid
whenever the driver IC feeds a load comparable to its low output resistance: internal power loss is much less than that of
a FG with the 50 Ohm output resistance.  That loss not present in the driver IC converts directly to an enhanced output current.
I did mention that I am aware of the switching speed data involved both for an FG and for gate driver ICs (including the very
fast 5 ns or so families you mention).  There is no as much difference in speed between them as to cause the high voltage change. 
Of course, when you pulse a coil and no resonance involved, the fast rate of change does count: the higher the switching
speed the higher the induced peak voltage across the coil at the moment the magnetic field collapses.

You also wrote: "Anyway, you don't acknowledge any gains in impulse and rate of change as determining the amount of
gains, as well as oscillating energy as a gain, with higher Q and higher CPS as determining the amount of gains."

I never wrote any of what you listed. I did write about voltage gain across L or C at resonance, I explained how much the
energy content the created EM field can possess due to the higher current the gate driver IC insures under the better
impedance matched condition.  Understand now? 

You also wrote: "The missing point was that the input was about the same when the tank was in or out of resonance.
And that was my point from the very beginning that you wouldn't address."

Rick, your claimed 8 W output power versus 0.75 W or so input has not been verified by replications yet so until then
how can I comment your point meaningfully? 

You also wrote: "One more  point is that I showed in the video that the added grounding changed the output even more. 
The input did not increase as well." 

I wrote earlier that one cannot estimate power levels by the naked eye, by simply watching the brightness of LED bulbs.
I watched in your video how the brightness increased (or decreased) when you put the ground wire onto the different
RX circuit points. I understand the difficulty of measuring output power of the receiver units and I also explained earlier
to A.king why the ground wire brings in more TX energy from the enviroment. It is the same effect a crystal radio receiver
manifests by giving higher (lauder) audio output when a ground wire is attached. The ground wire opens higher receiving
area / surface for the RX units when ground is connected to the proper circuit point. You say the ground wire brings in
extra electrons, this might fit here too but actually how much power this would add to that of the received by the EM near
field radiation should be estimated by measurements. Naked eye brightness observations are good for fine tuning to
achieve maximum transfer. 

Gyula

Gyulasun,
I can see you worked hard on this one. Nice job!  Almost everything you write here is out of context or just a basic level understanding of how all this work. You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience. You, through Itsu, may have a setup doing one thing, but it isn't what I am doing. You can do all that in college and limit yourself to one set of relationships. Then you can argue in a circle within the circle you have drawn for yourself to only experience. But I have stepped outside of that Lorentz truncated circle and find more to the story. I actually start with the fact that I have measurable 8W with a limited number of coils. I don't need to do any gymnastics to deny that and have 3/4W input. That is was just what happened without any tuning and rushing a video. If it is zero or negative then what? Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results and work your way backwards. Again, you argue merely in a circle to perpetuate an conservative dogma. How do you hope to realize your hope of a circuit producing any gains if you argue thus? This is why I said that was just misleading hype. We all know the mainstream theories here Gyulasun. The point of being here is to expand our minds beyond that when we see contradictory results like these and then consider what is really happening in the tank, and external to it. Consider what Barrett said and proved with real evidence. Consider what he also wrote in 1991 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305636853_Tesla's_nonlinear_oscillator-shuttle-circuit_OSC_theory_compared_with_linear_nonlinear-feedback_and_nonlinear-element_electrical_engineering_circuit_theory
This also shows you the difference in relation to Tesla. What you are fixated on inside your circle is a single body symmetry that has fixed relations and you suppose it can have no extra influence on other bodies. But that just isn't the case in a resonant tank is it? And in my case is it obvious that I can add more and more coils (about 500) without raising the input or lowering the other outputs (if properly positioned). So now I add 45 more big coils and bulbs at 1/2W each (30W total), with 440 small coils and bulbs (26W) and I'm just getting started, because the input has gone down more and I haven't even done the full tuning.

The point is that I can't make your hand move coils around and force you to see what you don't want to see because of your circle reasoning. I have tried to provide a different context for you to explore according to your "surely" expect hope. But that doesn't sound like expectation, but rather, it can't be more than conservative. I gave the historical context which most people are long aware of. This includes the financial motivations of Rockefeller via Morgan to keep this from the public. Followed by Tesla's context along these lines. Now I'll quote Benitez to show another example similar to what we are looking at here:

This invention relates to a new utilisation of the high frequency currents or electrical oscillations, by means of which a constant production of electrical energy can be secured, under unusually simple, economic and practical conditions. ...
Therefore it is only question of reversing the connections of said batteries from time to time and to repeat the same procedure, in order to obtain a continuous production of electrical energy. ...
Obviously, if such electric power instead of being stored by said condenser had been simply rectified, and directly applied to the charge of one of the above mentioned batteries, such power would only produce a very small effect on these accumulators, and the whole discharge of the other battery would never cause the complete charge of the second group. On the contrary, if same said power is stored by said condenser 48, and this condenser is properly connected to an oscillatory circuit in which one of said batteries can be joined, and furthermore if by means of a rectifier the high frequency currents produced in such oscillatory circuit are forced to pass from the positive to the negative pole through said battery of accumulators, it is obvious to state that it is always possible to secure by these means, the number of amperes required by said accumulators in order to get them charged in a given time. That is to say, with a small number of coulombs stored by the condenser 48, it is possible to produce on the oscillatory circuit a great number of amperes, if same said small number of coulombs are forced to pass and repass through said circuit, thousands or millions of times per second, just as was explained with the water analogy." Carlos F. Benitez, 1918 British Patent 121,561 New Process for the Generation of Electrical Energy.

Was Tesla, Benitez, Smith, Rick all lying to everyone about the real amplification of a tank circuit output? You many not realize how to do that, but can you say his testimony is a lie? I have demonstrated several years ago an earlier Benitez system that is easy for everyone to do. It is very similar, and the oscillations can be seen in your oscilloscope, as well as the fact that the batteries can be rotated. Benitez is verified as accurate. It is interesting that the skeptics never go after his patents and almost everyone but Peter and me have ignored him. Now the Resonance kit is a model of this last patent that is quoted above and does the same things. If what you said was true there would be no gain from a nonresonance condition to a resonance. Obviously there is a gain in resonance. Just ask any musician and they will laugh till they roll on the ground if you say no.

Now we do the Benitez system above, to a lesser degree, in chapter 2 with one wire system. But the same thing applies with wireless. And we can do the wireless in addition to this above patent. According to you, the tank would only output to the battery what would be output without the tank, because resonance is not a gain at all. 1,250,000 cycles per second of 1300V is not doing anything more than 12V@60ma would do. Of course resonance is just for tuning into radio stations, and music is flat. But with the wireless we are doing something else still.

If I have any radiation detector I can see what the inductor radiates in and out of resonance. In fact the difference of input is minimal in or out of resonance, but the radiation is phenomenally different. The way you word things contradicts that. You have an art in not finishing the context so that the reader gets the opposite impression. Sure you don't actually say it, but the way you argue implies it (otherwise there is no point in saying any of it). Or maybe this is just all a test to see if anyone is paying attention. The input does not change substantially, or proportionately to the radiation and voltage between in and out of resonance. This is a nonconservative relationship, obviously. Now if I was ringing the bell instead of a forced oscillation then that would be even more obvious. But again, all we have to do is compare the input with the output and see what the difference is: Input is about the same in or out of resonance, yet output massively different. hmmm, about the differences between 9V and 1300V. There's that 144 times the difference, and is what we see in radiation difference. Sounds like confirmation to me. Electrical resonance is just as much of a gain as piano resonance is no matter if you can't tune a string, or measure with a meter, or position with a coil. It is experimentally observable just as with a piano. You agree with the radiation difference, but you deliberately leave out the most obvious detail (which is implied by other things you say elsewhere) that the input does not correspondingly change to be 144 times different.

So all your reasoning is a bunch of hoopla. And it becomes merely a prestige jargon fallacy for those who do not understand these things. It took some time to craft those words. I don't have time to do this with the rest. Everyone can see again that you just have to consider the input and output in and out of resonance without understanding much else. You see that is what I am about. Not talking over people's heads. I show them the real world and use words they can clearly understand. I fill out the context and walk with them till they get it. Maybe irritated by that, but they hug me in the end.  You have just argued in a circle quoting the text book against your hope of more, have been special pleading to pick out whatever Itsu does one time and conclude on that, and have deliberately left out obvious facts that completely change everything. All this with mild prestige jargon so that those that don't understand just get discouraged, those that do don't pay attention to the details and just commit confirmation bias by the crafty missing context left out (the mind automatically concludes in the silence that the input must change). Well done! This is why I say this is mostly psychological.

Again, if you had shared this on electroboom's youtube channel or on a regular electronics forum, I would understand your insistence upon textbook circular quotation. But there has to be more than one person here on this forum that actually believes in OU and is willing to try these things out? Some of you guys claim to have OU, unless that was just a game as well. Does everyone here agree to believe what the textbooks tell you?

I suggest then you move up to Barrett's textbook then. If you are looking for mathematical justification he will open your mind. If you are looking for evidence and application of the same, he is also your man. He points you right back to the beginning, and then also to Tesla.

[rickfriedrich]

No Hoppy,
You just don't bother to read what I wrote and then pile more fallacies up.
Time is not a factor here because I did point out that G deliberately did not mention the fact that the input and output are not proportional. Bottom line is that out of resonance you have relatively the same input as in resonance, but out of resonance you have a tiny bit of radiation as indicated/according to the input level. And In resonance you have a lot of radiation. The time point doesn't apply here.

Secondly, you are actually being deceitful here in asking me for an exact logging of my time and then making such conclusions. You are either really ignorant are a real troublemaker. If I have hundreds or more hours of time on my boat over three years without every having to charge up my batteries, then your point means nothing. We are not talking about going out for 5 minutes and then again at the end of 3 years. All it takes is a few cycles of the batteries. Remember, I was always having amperage and voltage measurements on the input. So if I have fully discharged a 24V bank with the amount of time and amperage we would expect, and then rotate it around even several times, then I have OU. Next you will say 3 years of doing that isn't enough. Oscilloscope has nothing to do with any of this. But obviously I use it, and used them then.

This post of yours is really desperate because I have now made everything really clear. It is fascinating to watch these foolish remarks.

You appear to ignore the factor of 'time' in your rationalisation of resonance. Yes, of course there is a big difference between 9V and 1300V but most importantly what is the relationship between input to output energy levels. Time is an essential factor in energy calculation! That is why I asked you if you had recorded the full duration of your actual sailing time over the three years you quoted. You answered 'no' to this question, which tells me that you are missing one of the most important bits of data in order to seriously claim that your boat was running efficiently, let alone OU. Its also why I asked you about your view on the use of oscilloscopes as measuring instruments. In electrical terms, work done is inextricably related to time.

[rickfriedrich]

Yeah, tell that to a pianist.

You guys are kidding yourselves, resonance is the shuffling of a specific quantity, nothing more.

take 30ml of water, in a closed pipe, arrange on a pendulum, the water moves to one end, the pendulum moves, as does the water, the same 30ml of water returns: Zero Zeta, no resistance.

Time to wake up nubes, I am a Paid Debunker

[rickfriedrich]

G,
You are not showing us anything here, so until you do I will just go by your words. Your words show that you have not experienced this yet. And your response shows calculated misleading.
This is not a logical fallacy at all. Nice try. The results are not the conclusion and an attempt to find justification. The results are the premise. So is looking back at the rest. The conclusion we are looking for is not the mere results. It is in trying to conclude on what is happening. You have made a claim as to exactly what is happening. That is your conclusion. I have said that your claim is factually false. The results are not the output but the input and the output and considering the differences between in and out of resonance. The results of what is happening from beginning to end.
On the other hand you have deliberately left out the fact that the input is relatively the same when the output voltage and radiation is radically different. And in place of that you may as well just be his joker mofo just mocking everyone for being here because in the end you will just say the same sort of things. Input = output. Again, where is your basis for this hyped up hope for free energy?

Rick,
I quote from your post below:

"You are arguing right out of the book and not from real world experience."

You know nothing about my background, about my real world experience. 

You also wrote:
"Obviously your explanation is mistaken if you just consider the results. You have to start with the results
and work your way backwards."

Are not these 2 sentences in logical fallacy?