Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[forest]

I propose such complicated experiment yet quite simple for experienced EE gurus here .Replace both batteries with capacitors and add DC-DC converter (possibly isolated one) to that output capacitor to recharge input capacitor so any excess energy will be visible in extended runtime of motor. Surely some overvoltage protection will be needed.

[poynt99]

Rick,


I'll also mention that my assertion that you've grossly over-estimated the output power of your LED's is just that, an assertion or technical opinion. It is not a lie.


You seem to be confusing lies with opinions. I have no reason to lie about anything.

[Void]

poynt99, Void
May i ask you guys why is there any problem of calling inductive spikes as counter emf when the equation which calculates both is the same?
cemf=-L*ΔΙ/Δt
After all, an inductive spike is a result of opposition to current change isn't it like that?

Hi Jeg, They are related in that they are both voltages generated by a coil, but there is a major difference.
If I apply a voltage Vi to a coil, the coil then generates a voltage that is in opposition
to the applied voltage Vi. Since this generated voltage is in opposition to the applied
voltage Vi, it is referred to as 'counter EMF' or 'back EMF'.

Now, if I then disconnect my voltage source Vi from the coil, the coil no longer has a voltage
applied to it, The magnetic field around the coil collapses and creates a voltage spike which
is the same polarity as Vi was (in other words this generated voltage spike is not in opposition)
and which acts to try to keep the current that was flowing in the coil going. This inductive switching voltage
spike is an assisting or aiding voltage. It is not acting counter to the original applied voltage Vi, so it shouldn't
be referred to as 'counter EMF' or 'back EMF'.

All the best...

[rickfriedrich]

Darren,
This is what you wrote:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3796.msg76645#msg76645
"In my estimation based on the relative brightness of the LEDs to the background lighting, I'd say all of the LEDs are barely, barely "ON". I think Rick has grossly overestimated his output power by a factor of between 150 and 250 times. That would yield each LED using between 2mW and 5mW roughly"

This is so exaggerated so that is a lie. The bulbs don't even come on at all until they are powered with 10 times that power (that is 50mW). I was actually surprised that you of all people would say that. This showed everyone just how far off you are and why no one would ever succeed on OUR if you are the gatekeeper. The bulbs were actually around 0.5W so you are off by 100 times! You are not some ignorant joe shmoe so that is what makes it a lie. An intentional attempt to mislead people about this. It doesn't bother me because I don't expect people to believe anything in the videos. They can do their own testing, as many have. You guys wouldn't be so into this if you thought I was off by 100 to 250 times.  Someone who is that far off only merits at  and then everyone just moves on. Anyone who spent so much time on someone who was off by 100 times is a real fool who wastes time. But someone who knows it is true and wants people to not believe it is true will write such things.

Rick,
I'll also mention that my assertion that you've grossly over-estimated the output power of your LED's is just that, an assertion or technical opinion. It is not a lie.
You seem to be confusing lies with opinions. I have no reason to lie about anything.

[rickfriedrich]

Darren,
That is exactly my point. Conventional systems ignore all the potential that is available as you do to in saying the energy is equally "burned off" with or without the battery. I am just showing the super basics here. And as a result the motor draws significantly less input energy and produces additional useful output. The purpose is to open a door for people to ask why isn't this being done? You should be saying, well that is cool Rick. But you will never give me any credit. I also have solved one of the biggest environmental problems on earth, which also solves one of the biggest alternative energy problems as well: battery replacement. I guess that earns no respect either.

In light of Brad's attempt to trash me on my youtube channel about claiming this fan is 50% efficient, today I called the owner of that company who makes that fan (and over 5000 models), and he said that fan was 94% efficient. BLDC motors are generally considered to be between the range of 80-96% efficient.

Once people understand this kind of engineering then they can multiply these processes again and again as I have shown. You can actually create endless additional reactive loops off of the motor coil negative loop. That is the same kind of thing Benitez did 100 years ago and what Barrett was getting at here:

"Tesla's approach to electrical engineering addresses primarily the reactive part of electromagnetic field-matter interactions, rather than the resistive part. His approach is more comparable with the physics of nonlinear optics and many-body systems than with that of single body systems. It is fundamentally a nonlinear approach and may be contrasted with the approach of mainstream electrical engineering, both linear and nonlinear. The nonlinear aspects of mainstream EE are based on feedback in the resistive field, whereas the nonlinearity in Tesla's approach is based on oscillators using to-and-fro shuttling of energy to capacitive stores through non-circuit elements attached to circuits. These oscillator-shuttle-circuit connections result in adiabatic nonlinearities in the complete oscillator-shuttle-circuit systems (OSCs). As a development of this approach, 3-wave, 4-wave...nwave mixing is proposed here using OSC devices rather than laser-matter interactions. The interactions of oscillator-shuttles (OS) and circuits (C) to which they are attached as monopoles forming OSCs are not describable by Kirchhoff's and Ohm's laws. It is suggested that in the OSC formulation, floating grounds are functionally independent and do not function as common grounds. Tesla employed, rather, a concept of multiple grounds for energy storage and removal by oscillator-shuttles which cannot be fitted in the simple monolithic circuit format, permitting a many-body definition of the internal activity of device subsystems which act at different phase relations." Tesla's nonlinear oscillator-shuttle-circuit (OSC) Theory. T. W. Barrett. 1991. Compared with linear, nonlinear-feedback and nonlinear-element electrical engineering circuit theory.

I know this may be hard to read and understand but I am trying to illustrate these advanced concepts in simple ways. Like I said, if you go back to Faraday and Maxwell (and here Tesla) you have free energy as permissible in these ways. Or you can continue on with establishment lower level electrical engineering and pay for your electric. Have you not realized that the Maxwell equations were truncated so that everything would be symmetrical and under unity as a result? Like I wrote, if you are not willing to deal with the foundations of electrical history, theory, and practice, then there is no point to saying you are searching in OU research. Conventional Maxwell theory is linear theory in which the scalar and vector potentials appear to be arbitrary and defined by boundary conditions of choice gage. It must be extended, or generalized to a non-Abelian form. The potentials have more than mathematical significance, they have real physical significance. As Barrett specifies above, when extended to higher symmetry forms, Maxwell's theory possesses non-Abelian commutation relations, and addresses global (i.e. nonlocal in space), as well as local phenomena with the potentials used as local-to-global operators. When thus extended we have the ability to venture beyond the closed resistive under unity field existence. It is like a blind person seeing for the first time. Conventional theory/circuitry is only part of the picture and that is why they clamp off this negative energy and treat it as meaningless. And this is why suppressors are there (and I mean both snubber systems and so-called experts). There is no place for Faraday's "electrotonic state", Maxwell's "free energy" equation, Tesla's real shuttle circuits, Benitez free "Generation of Electrical Currents", etc. That science is forbidden because it eliminates the selling of power. And yet these are the founders of modern electrical systems! Yet what they actually found was much more than what you are taught today.

You have to come to grips with this before you try and critique OU claims. Because if you are arguing from conventional theory, as you have been, then you have no foundation or basis as that is only a part of electrical phenomena and processes. Once you come to grips with the fact that the world is bigger than the arbitrary limitations the profit-based institutions have put on you then you will be free indeed to see much more (as these founders did). Then you can see that the A potentials have real physical significance as Maxwell wrote, and you can make use of that information as I have. You will then not try and make everything symmetrical but exploit disequilibrium relationships. You won't mock and suppress asymmetry but maximize it. The fan is just the slightest sliver and hint introduction to this other world you haven't begun to understand. This technology is real and it is used. It is not understood by college level engineers who are crafted sheeple to perpetuate such limitations.

Referring to the attached pic from Rick's brushless DC fan video, and the one baudirenergie replicated, I have a question:
From the perspective of the person conducting this experiment, what signs should they be looking for to indicate that the experiment is a success?
I have no issue nor argument about the identical fan output in both circuit configurations, as that is obvious from the schematic. What I do question is whether including the second battery in the flyback loop (and its charging effect) constitutes experimental proof of overunity.
In the first scenario (left circuit configuration), the unused energy stored in the motor coil is burned off in the flyback diode and the winding resistance of the motor coil. In the second scenario (right circuit configuration), the unused energy stored in the motor coil is burned off in the diode, the battery, and the winding resistance of the motor coil.
Unless there is some heretofore unknown "process" that takes place inside the battery due to the pulses that super-potentializes it (or something), there is no OU effect taking place with this circuit configuration.
So I ask my question above; how does one "know" when they have hit success with this experiment?
And as an aside Rick, I want to address the fact that you have called me a liar here in at least one post. Although there is always the possibility that I am wrong that this circuit configuration (or any variant of it) does not produce overunity (which I doubt), I most certainly have not lied with that assertion; I have no reason to.