Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

Well this thread rather amusing. Like a bunch of parrots repeating the same thing in the same room. 

I go away for a minute and find ya'll slipping back into that old fallacy of thinking you can prove or disprove something over the internet. Same old assumption again and again. You are all so upset because I have taken away your online game here. For some it's a hobby game and others its a job no doubt. But to me it is funny how silly this is getting. You go on and on for hours, weeks, and now months in circles. Not just circle reasonings but circle circuits that kill the source charge. You'd think this was an Underunity list or something. The rules are there can be no overunity because that is the rule, that's the way circuits work of course. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't use meters of course!

Carroll,

You can assume whatever you like but I do use meters in the real world. I think I just showed an anemometer on video yesterday. hmmm that's meaningless. You guys don't even watch my videos and have no clue about anything I do. I think that is obvious enough.

Well, working in electronics doesn't even mean you know what the parts do. All I know about you guys is that I know nothing about you but a screen name and that you are a bunch of parrots saying the same things over and over again that there is nothing in what I showed. Again, if that was so then you would all have moved on. But you are all so very worked up about it. And just look at the views to this thread, 130,000!! hmmmm, must be nothing here. Move along. You guys are so confused because you keep assuming that you can prove or disprove something on these forums. You can't. Even one of you who believes this wants me to try and prove something over the videos. I've already done what they expect to be proof over video. But I don't want to encourage people to believe something like this over video. You must prove to yourself these things. The only "way to verify his claims" Carroll is in the real world! I've been doing that for 15 years. I've also showed more videos of these kind of stuff that most people or maybe anyone. Who knows. But I don't pretend to try and convince anyone of these things. I share information. I do cheesy videos when I get a moment, because I am showing a friend some point. Ya'll take things too seriously. You're so intent on disproving things with arguments from ignorance as this post reveals. You are certain I don't know anything, but are so bothered by it that you are obsessed with this.

Is this forum about OU or showing OU to be impossible? If it is about OU and I don't know anything about it, and surely am mistaken, then are there not any credible OU claims out there? Surely I am not the only one left am I? But no, you all really do believe there is something here. You are really upset that it has gotten so much traction. You present yourselves as interested in OU but constantly argue against the possibility. You make your limited understanding of conventional theory the standard. Well I quoted the leading authority and no one responded. It was the very heart of the matter. Then suddenly there was two or three pages filled of distractions. Typical response. You guys just pretend to no be able to see what Barrett said. You pretend to not believe in many body independent reactive systems. You pretend to just believe in the single closed looped circuit. But I'm not so convinced. Your body language reveals the truth by your reactions, omissions and methods. Again, your zeal to attack this information is based on the fact that you know this to be true and you don't want it to be revealed.

Anyway, so much of your arguments would be true IF, iiiiiiiifffffffff this was happening IN THE REAL WORLD! Remember, I did that video to bring out this reaction from all of you because I have been at this for 15 years and know all these games people like you play. Most of you have fallen on your faces and been exposed now. Most of you still assume you can prove something or disprove something over the internet. But that has been long settled now. It takes away all your relevance. Because you have nothing positive to offer but rude criticism. You guys show no real evidence of knowledge of Tesla, Stienmetz, Barrett, etc., or of Overunity claims in general. So all this is meaningless chatter. I wrote hundreds of responses to you but there has been only a few responses. How disproportionate ya think? One of me and how many of you in your relay tag team. lol. Why don't you start by telling me or us how Barrett doesn't know anything about electricity? Or Brad, why don't you tell us why people like me are giving Tesla a bad name? Prove from Tesla that he didn't teach on these things? You guys haven't done your homework, you are just using every fallacy in the book, including the unverifiable claims that you are some experts. These are just words. As for me, I don't play such games by thinking I can prove something over the internet. I prove things in the real world. But you just only exist in cyberland apparently. So you can create your own virtual reality I guess. Anyway, go read Barrett and figure out what he was getting at if you are so expert. Just maybe you will begin to realize what I have been doing all these years...

The problem is that Rick NEVER makes any real measurements.  All he makes are excuses for why he doesn't make measurements.  A flat discharge curve from a battery doesn't mean anything if you don't know the amount of current being drawn from the battery.  If a battery has been fully charged and then allowed to rest for a few hours and then lightly loaded it will actually show an increase in voltage for the first few minutes because as the battery is first being used it will warm up slightly and that will increase the voltage.  Many inexperienced experimenters are fooled by this.

You are criticizing people that have been working in electronics for many many years.  They have put thousands of hours into investigating claims like Rick's.  Unless Rick is willing to share more than he has there just isn't any way to verify his claims.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[poynt99]

I watched your latest video with the fans and charging circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk


Might the decrease in input current be a result of obtaining better efficiency?


To you, is "Free Energy" the same as "Overunity"?


Perhaps you are squeezing "more" energy from the source to the load....this does not necessarily mean it is free or OU.


I am sure I did some circuit simulation testing many years ago with this setup, and achieved the same results you just showed. I will have to see if I can find it.

[rickfriedrich]

Oh I won't forget your prejudice. You assume that I am mistaken by 150 to 250 times. Yeah, you are the expert to prove things out so that everyone is to believe what you say. The guy to ensure that no claim on OUR ever qualifies. A true gate keeper indeed!

I addressed those questions in the video and comments.

So if I obtained better efficiency with a single moving of a diode (and adding another) then how can that be explained? Surely I am an idiot according to you and most of you guys on these two lists. Surely I don't use meters and or know the first thing about anything. So how could I figure out how to make the input drop by 70-80ma on such a fan that is made by the millions? All with just repositioning of a diode? That must be a fairly important thing? How could that be overlooked? hmmmm, I wonder if there may be something else in this?

What about the battery charging? We are not just talking about greater efficiency (when it is fairly high already), but a battery charging as well. Now as I said in the video, that is not the ideal way to do this. But it does give people something to consider. It gives them something they didn't have before while they still have the same CFMs. So that extra is free. Now if it was not a very popular motor then you could say well it may just have been running very inefficiently. But this helps people to see what they are missing. Again, the better way is to replace the circuitry as is usually done, but that doesn't give the exact comparison with the same CFMs and self-starting.

I'm sure you guys would never be able to settle upon what the real efficiency of any motor really is so that you would never be able to evaluate any such claim. Like I said, you will be at this for another 5 years playing with words while some of continue to use such fans for another 5 years (as I have used for 14 years). But if you can find an pulse motor that you can be confident as to its real efficiency and decide what it would take to for there to be free energy above that, then I would be impressed that you got to first base. I doubt however that you would even admit if you got 10% more energy than what is supposed to be possible. Maybe you would say that is not free energy. It's all word games isn't with you guys. Oh and number games. Now what would you do if the batteries could just keep rotating around all summer long? Or if the input battery stayed the same while additional loads were added to the output?

It doesn't matter guys, it is just a video. It doesn't matter if I show a meter like this. I could show you the same with the bulbs as you have been asking, but then you would not have written what you have. You would still not believe. And that is fine, because I never expect you to believe a stranger over the internet. You are not here to examine everything. If I showed the bulbs with all the meters, light meters, scope shots, etc., what would happen. The exact same things that have been happening from day one. I am automatically wrong because I violate what you claim is impossible. In the end people can believe what they want from information that is shared. People can believe that human flight is not possible while others fly around the world. People can modify fans, as tens of thousands have over the last 14 years, and they can have excess power. Others will play word and number games and stay in the school debate room. Some of us deal with real-world technology and use these processes to make motors do whatever we want. These are not new ideas. This is over 100 years. It is rather amazing that we can have two large forums where you are considered an expert, and put in place as a gate keeper over OU claims, and you don't even have the very basic experience of OU yet! And all the while you rail on me for sharing some information while I repeatedly say that you cannot prove or disprove OU over the internet. So no, I have zero confidence that you will ever say anything positive or admit to anything that resembles free energy or OU. The whole lot of you play tag-team to try and disprove anything like that. You guys have zero foundation for OU research. You have no justification for OU possibilities just like G finally admitted. You act like you are open but you give zero reason. Actually negative/below zero as you aggressively attack the very idea of OU directly and indirectly.

I'm sure you have done everything Mr. Expert. So why doesn't everyone just then conclude that there is no such thing as OU. The gatekeeper has spoken. The man behind the curtain is the new Wizard of OZ!

I watched your latest video with the fans and charging circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0pWApv7jdk


Might the decrease in input current be a result of obtaining better efficiency?


To you, is "Free Energy" the same as "Overunity"?


Perhaps you are squeezing "more" energy from the source to the load....this does not necessarily mean it is free or OU.


I am sure I did some circuit simulation testing many years ago with this setup, and achieved the same results you just showed. I will have to see if I can find it.

[WhatIsIt]

: "After your run you can unload all batteries in your system over the Wh-Meter and can prove for YOURSELF....".
Even if I could supply a whole city from a button cell, you would say that I have a measurement error.
So it makes no sense to proof anything. You are to intelligent or what they call it here "accurate" for me. I don't claim OU. I see only gains for myself.

I dont want to be intelligent.

I been fooled with my own measurements so many times, and I was thinking that I have OU.
Then I realized that only transient power measurements are valid, and accurate.
And when I started to practice that, it was easy for me to see my own mistakes and pitfalls.

Mr. Void is trying to tell you same thing over and over but nobody listen.

Measure input power and load power, and then you can see how your system works.
There is no other way!
Any other way leads to your own pitfall!

I am not sure what are you saying here?
After the run, you remove batteries and system works?

Look at Kapanadze videos. Does he affraid to show 20+ Amps on output?
And he shows how much is going back to system.

There is reason that person does not want to measure transient power.
If he does, everything in which he believe can go down into the oblivion in split second.
But on the other hand, transient measurement can show more on load than input, which is very good, and solves everything.

Why the fear of the transient measurements? It is very quick and easy!
Mr. Itsu does that all the time and show it in his videos.
Trust the instruments, not your eyes.

[WhatIsIt]

Even if I could supply a whole city from a button cell, you would say that I have a measurement error.
So it makes no sense to proof anything.

If you measure on your button cell transient power of 1 Watt, and on the line which powers city 10 Watt, then you have OU, and I dont have to trust anything except your proper measurement.
And, yes, then I believe you.

It has sense to proper measure!