Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[lancaIV]

Void,merci beaucoup for the well done measurement and comparison !
I think this is a point where also Itsu get his satisfaction !

[popolibero]

Rick, thanks. So are you saying the cap dump turn on time shouldn't be as fast and abrupt as possible? Also, when negatively charging (diode) the additional gain is to be found in the battery. If we use a small cap, even high voltage, where do you think the gain is entering the system, the small cap or the battery, and if the battery, can we still consider it positively charged?
Sorry for these basic questions, but after all the confusion and after many experiments there is still uncertainty, especially after JB and Peter recommended big caps in the latest guide...


Mario

The high voltage is not a problem, it is the current. I moved from high uf to low. And you regulate the rate of change impulsing of the cap dump to be gentle enough, but to also allow for the ability to rotate the batteries around.
Regular cap dump pulse chargers ruin batteries over time.

[rickfriedrich]

This is what happens when people are so intent on disproving someone that they end up doing the very thing they are accusing others of. They forget to read the title of the video. hmmm I wonder what they WHOLE point of the video was? BUT FIRST NOTICE SOMETHING. THIS ALSO CONFIRMS MY POINT:

Notice Void has 10ma (0.01A) on his supply and the other meter reads 20ma. So which is it? How can anyone go from a picture to conclude these things exactly? This is assuming you can prove something over the internet.

But consider, is it ever right to believe an OU claim based upon a picture and video with words? The critics exception to that is when they will make a conclusion upon one part of such picture or video which somehow they decide is worthy to believe and that they are able to absolutely know the full context of. Further, while they reject a video or picture purporting to show something, because you can't determine such things with a video, etc., they make an exception for themselves while making a video or picture that makes an equal claim of their own.

The problem with his analogy is that my bulbs don't even come on until 6V, and only at 7V can they show any significant brightness. I have to get them to 7.4V @ 0.07A to get them to be at the 1/2W brightness they were at. Now they were slightly different brightness from each other, especially the one connected to the ferrite rod, so this is their average. And remember, these are not hf parts. This was 1.1MHz. Now the little LEDs on the smaller coils when combined are more than the input as well. That is obviously not the focus, but they also have to be added into the mix. They too have a minimum in which they will come on...

The point that is also forgotten is that I can keep adding more and more coils without affecting the input as G doesn't believe. If I had shown everyone, as I actually did at the meeting, the effect of adding more and more coils, then you would understand that. I eventually filled up the table and showed that anywhere I placed the big or small coils (most anywhere as there are some adverse relationships) that the input would stay the same or even go down without changing the other outputs (again some places no). If we had had the time we had another 50 coils I could have added. But the point was seen and we moved on to other demonstrations. This was not a point that these guys hadn't experienced already.

So Void is once again void of context who usually ends up proving the very thing he set out to disprove    Some could wonder if he was doing this on purpose. 

This was why I didn't show side by side, because I wanted to see these kinds of reactions that only prove my more important point. It is far more important for people to learn to be scientific than to even have OU. And I mean being honest. There is no science in thinking you can prove a truth of demonstration over the internet or video. Such credulity is the ruin of all science and all of society. Then the incredulity comes in with credulous disproofs of credulous claims. It's just madness!

Anyway, I was waiting for someone to do this sort of thing. That was perfect Void. Bravo! We have "Confirmation of" my most important "claims" on this thread. Now maybe this will be settled with at least you guys.

The other thing it shows, is just how much people take liberties to assume about what they see and what they read about what others have shared. They assume they know the context. But how can you if you are not there? This is the deeper matter, and implied by thinking you can prove something like this over video. Again, I care far more about people living a life where they forsake the confirmation bias methodology than I do about all technology combined. I really don't care if you have free energy if you run reckless with your judgments and perversions of reality. What good is free energy if you are dishonest about your reasoning? And it this case such a reckless methodology only keeps you from seeing the truth. And that applies to both sides here. If I, or those who believe in OU, just want to believe I have something I really don't, what good does that do? I have seen both sides do this. This is why I say this is 90-95% psychological. And a side point is that we need to see the good in our supposed failures in experiments. All results are telling us something we can learn from. If we don't have that attitude then we are probably in a state of confirmation bias. It is an ugly thing to see a skeptic disbelieve something that is obviously true to them. But it is just as ugly to believe something is true that is manifestly not.

For people with maybe not so much experience in 'over unity' experimentation,
I will try to explain and demonstrate here in a simple and straightforward way why just
looking at the brightness of bulbs (LED or otherwise) can't tell you anything too meaningful
or definite about how a circuit is really performing.

A picture was posted here of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 LED bulbs (I think
they were stated as being LED bulbs) and the stated input power to his setup was 0.864 Watts.
It was implied that lighting 11 or 12 of those bulbs fairly brightly at less than 1 Watt input power
was something that should be considered quite impressive and an indication of possible over unity (OU).

Please see the three attached photos.
Photo 01:  Picture of Rick F. lighting what looks like about 11 or 12 bulbs at a stated 0.864 Watts = 864 mW input power.

Photo 02:  My comparison of lighting a single LED bulb quite brightly.
Can you tell how much power this bulb is consuming from just looking at how bright it is? Of course you can't.
I had spots in front of my eyes from looking at this bulb when I was setting it up to take a photo of it.
It was very bright when looking at it directly.

Photo 03:  Measurement of the power consumption of my single LED bulb.
3 Volts x .02 Amps = 0.06 Watts = 60 mW

If I were to light 14 of my LED bulbs at the same time, the total power consumption of my setup would be:
14 x 60 mW = 0.840 Watts =  840 mW

I hope this simple comparison test clarifies why people are (and should be) quite skeptical of any type of circuit
arrangement supposedly being over unity without proper measurements being shown.
Don't be fooled by any max or 'equivalent' power ratings which may be specified for a given LED bulb.
Those numbers can be quite misleading.

What matters is the actual power consumption of each LED bulb being lighted while connected in the circuit setup.
You can only determine that by doing proper measurements. My rough comparison test shown in the photos below
seems to indicate that Rick's results shown in that photo do not appear to be anything too unusual,
and only if proper measurements are taken could the actual efficiency of the setup be determined with any degree of certainty.

Hope this clarifies some things.

[rickfriedrich]

I wanted to capture this response also so if it gets deleted we can preserve it.

Void,merci beaucoup for the well done measurement and comparison !
I think this is a point where also Itsu get his satisfaction !

[rickfriedrich]

Mario,
These are not really basic questions and there is nothing to be sorry about.

The cap charging and discharging is a whole science in itself. Of course for people just limiting themselves to linear processes they will assume condensers are linear. If I ever get around to the new Benitez kit that will be the point to look at. This is why I gave a hint in mentioning step charging... I'm still trying to come up with short terminology for classifying all the important phenomena about capacitors as a principle. Tesla spent a lot of words on this. He was not one to waste words either. Understanding the principles of free energy relating to capacitor charging and discharging is one of the most important as it relates to a good number of systems. I'm trying to think of a percentage, but it is probably 10-25%. Several of Don Smith's systems depend upon this. The batteries are kind of overlapping that somewhat, as they have similar responses. Of course Impulse and Resonance are key ingredients in this principle as always...

While people are still looking for free energy, I am focused on tuning it. I don't want a battery rotating system over or under charging. For the public we have code for the Arduino circuit that allows for basic monitoring of a battery periodically to determine if it needs to slightly discharge it so as to not over charge.

So yes, not as abrupt as possible or you will get more than you want, or it could even do damage. While I share a lot of information, I don't get into my proprietary research on all the details of ideal charging.

The additional gain is to be found on the entire path. That is why I have mentioned the third stage process. Gain of course is that which is useful as far as most people consider things. We don't care about the wire, but the wire and terminal size and characteristics make a difference because the energy is convergent. The gain in the battery is found in the battery over time. Even after the system is turned off it can continue to charge for extended periods of time. So rest is one gain that would not be expected. This is the opposite of constant current which is what man does contrary to nature.

The theory is that the whole path becomes a negative resistor where the energy converges into everything in the path. The impulse opens that door, and the current follows after that event. So a capacitor charges up as a result, but it copies the energy and discharges current after it's impulse event. So the negative event comes before the regular current flow. The Impulse gives you the benefits, but the current gives you a positive charge. Early on I realized that I could impulse a small cap into a bigger cap and the energy did not add up. The same thing is true when we have a tiny capacitor charging a big battery. It doesn't add up at all. The video AG linked to some weeks ago of the fake disproof of the fan kit gave the exact opposite claim. The liar said he couldn't even charge a tiny cap to 1V over many minutes. But I think most people here know that is not true at all. Now the secret is in considering why this all happens and what to do. I'm still deciding how much I want to say along these lines and more importantly how to properly word the principle.

Yeah, you can see big caps most of the time. Earlier pictures just before I got into this show even 3 1F caps I believe, and that would have a place for certain things. But it would do real damage to a fair size battery. Of course I started to see over time that Bedini was just a battery killer who really never did take the time to do experiments himself personally. He always had someone else do things from everything I witnessed and all the people I have spoke to during his whole career. That is fine if you take the time to properly pay attention to those you are copying or your staff who is doing the actual testing. John had very little to do with the battery chargers, and even the ones he made later on on his own he didn't test. After all, always promoted the worst battery killer of all, the Bedini Switch as it should be called (and not the Tesla Switch). You can't push current around in batteries without damage real fast.

As for the battery bible, that does not apply to this technology. Some of the that teaching gets into those manuals. There is some good things in there, but there isn't enough practical information to help people do things right. It reveals a lack of personal experience or an attempt to give people second best or worse. The context is that these are revelations from a god, the legend himself, who invented sliced bread and everything that came after it.  So everything is gold to be oohed and awed about. There is no proper context. There is a lot of content, but the need is not fulfilled. The most important thing that could have been added from the Bedini teaching is what we showed in video 7 as mentioned. Why was that left out? But my point is that these forums and such guides just create so much wasted time in people trying out what someone has shown without the proper understanding of the principles of free energy. So people bring into the replication of some parts their own context and hope to magically have some 'good' results. This what you get from storytelling teaching that is not principle based. Worship the living legend methodology. The thing is, that you still have things like DVD7 and several good things mentioned in documents, etc., but in the end you have to judge it all by the total effect it had on people. And that effect was long ago calculated. The effect was for people in general to fail, while only those who were 'worthy' would be able to sift through all the nonsense, stories, and personality fits, and figure out the true points. It was a game played out, with the expectation that most people would not succeed. It also appears that several things were intentionally given to the public to create failure, like the Tesla Switch to destroy their batteries. And of course what we find here with the big caps may have been along those lines. But also in his later insistence of not using neo magnets to distance himself from me and try and make me look like I was doing something wrong. But that just was also him limiting people from using neos which are fine to use, obviously. Trying to make battery chargers on his own, that were not doing the same thing as I was doing with my chargers, may be an example. I don't have time to review those manuals for the SG book to go over everything that could be mentioned. My point is that context and methodology is everything. What method you choose will determine your outcome.

Rick, thanks. So are you saying the cap dump turn on time shouldn't be as fast and abrupt as possible? Also, when negatively charging (diode) the additional gain is to be found in the battery. If we use a small cap, even high voltage, where do you think the gain is entering the system, the small cap or the battery, and if the battery, can we still consider it positively charged?
Sorry for these basic questions, but after all the confusion and after many experiments there is still uncertainty, especially after JB and Peter recommended big caps in the latest guide...


Mario