Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[seaad]

I  have got nothing against Mr.Friedrichs' claims,without to know what his claims really are  !
Instead 75 coils 75 and more bulbs


Reading : https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004100349A1/en

and  knowing that beside Volt and Ampere the European net-grid works with "stable" 50 Hz frequency.
Light elements are "physiological" indicators,without real output  measurements by appropriate instruments

related

"flickering" (1/10,1/100,1/1000 sec cam sequences ) and/or

lux/lumen and/or

heat units/ calori)

we do not know about the real output/input ratio.

Other example :

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5130608A/en
PRR : pulse repetition rate ( and our eyes reaction delay)

Before : 100 W lamp consume             with module : 4 Watt lamp + 8 Watt ( the modul consume)

                                                                                            lumen/Watt ? calori/Watt
A power saving device, not claimed : OU

We have to disclose ( and differ) physical and technical peak and average power consume ( with/-out feed back circuit)

The brain is saving (remember)  light?
Did Rick use FWB's as Itsu?

No I don't think so if this sudent follows his master;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAxB-Dtl1U

Arne

[steeltpu]

The fact is that no-one has disproved Rick's claims. When someone shows a video with 75 receiver coils looking just like Rick's video and says it's not ou then we have a challenge to his claim and no more.
At the moment the hard facts are that there are NO challenges that are credible to his claim.
  Get over it.
So from a pure science perspective the score is

RICK 1, NAYSAYERS  0

EE theory goes nowhere (so far)  in a claim situation like this. (Unless you embrace Rick's theory)



And in case you missed it -  Rick did not patent his claim.  He gave it to the world for FREE.

WRONG!   


Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.

[AlienGrey]

So could this be overunity https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPDHyT78awYka_xNjim1NdFeJCUc1TVPPQNdzlBYuZnBEki6voHn1aSPSAc8GQzLg?key=NkJFbXcwZThYT1AxaHdNZC1GUDkzNGRoZ196cGVR

[gyulasun]

The brain is saving (remember)  light?
Did Rick use FWB's as Itsu?

No I don't think so if this sudent follows his master;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAxB-Dtl1U

Arne

Hi Arne,

A.king21 wrote somewhere that Rick uses MR16 type LED bulbs, these are rated between 3 and 12 W or so and made for both 12 V DC and AC and as such they must have a diode bridge inside.

For those not considering that a LED is a diode I notice that when fed from AC voltage a single LED draws current during every second half wave of the AC periods, thus its drawn power from the AC source is much less than in a rectified AC voltage case, so the loaded Q of an LC tank that feeds such LEDs as the attached picture shows may remain relatively high. Also, there is not current draw from the AC source whenever the instanteneous AC voltage amplitude is under a certain threshold level below the forward voltage. 

Gyula

[a.king21]

Hi Arne,

A.king21 wrote somewhere that Rick uses MR16 type LED bulbs, these are rated between 3 and 12 W or so and made for both 12 V DC and AC and as such they must have a diode bridge inside.

For those not considering that a LED is a diode I notice that when fed from AC voltage a single LED draws current during every second half wave of the AC periods, thus its drawn power from the AC source is much less than in a rectified AC voltage case, so the loaded Q of an LC tank that feeds such LEDs as the attached picture shows may remain relatively high. Also, there is not current draw from the AC source whenever the instanteneous AC voltage amplitude is under a certain threshold level below the forward voltage. 

Gyula

Correct, so you have to take into account the further losses incurred by passing the current through the bridge rectifier.