Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[poynt99]

I haven't been arguing so much from theory, as much as real world past observations.


As such, it comes down to the bench; if one builds your brushless DC fan setup with a charge battery, how does one know if they have succeeded in producing free energy?

[rickfriedrich]

The point is that there is a difference, as Barrett pointed out, between single and many-body systems. "Burning off" or clamping out the real potential makes for a monolithic circuit that will always be under unity. This is why I made a point to bring out the many-body system with the name selfish circuits or loving paths. The single circuit loop is merely a local body and does not consider global relations or with other bodies. The loop is an entity unto itself. But that was not so to Tesla and his shuttle circuits, often with one wire connections. This does not make sense to conventional engineers limited to single body symmetrical closed loops. You guys can't consider many-body systems where elements are independent and yet mutually benefited. To you it is all just a single body with a common ground. But the fan circuit modification is actually a many-body system with a floating ground exactly as Barrett mentioned below. The second body is not part of the first body. It is independent. Darren is trying to treat them both as a single body in his assumption. That is to be expected from his post-Maxwellian context. Naturally, the combined energy output of both loops are going to be considered as part of the input energy. This is the argument given. If that was the case then I continue to ask, then why are people not doing this (well I am)? Barrett points out that these independent loops are not part of the primary Kirchhoff loop. Kirchhoff holds only as a special case at a steady state in a monolithic circuit. Independent branch loops or elements are beyond that loop and rule. Snubber systems are just covering up the dirty little secret of Maxwellian/Tesla free energy.

Further, these loops with additional loads can be multiplied as I have shown and explained for years.

Further to the point, circuit parts can result in multiple useful load outputs. If a motor was 96% efficient according to the work done and input energy supplied, and with modification allowed for such negative electrical output that amounted to 10% or 50% or 90% or 100%, etc., of the input energy then obviously we have two outputs when only one has been considered by conventional engineers. What if, like Robert Adams, we also have substantially extra heat output in addition to both of these? What if, like I have shown, we have additional EMP coils being influenced by the radiation in addition to these three outputs? What if, we have this all as a resonant circuit where the capacitor is also the water cell splitting water at the same time all this is happening? What if, and the possibilities continue. The selfish circuit is monolithic also in function and not just in its isolation. Because you are not allowed to do more work than what the input allows for because of some arbitrary law some men agreed to force upon everyone. This is the ultimate dogma you must agree to to be part of the club. So in the fan they cannot allow for electrical output along with the mechanical. Because the mechanical and resistive losses makes up the Kirchhoff loop unity. That is the selfish circuit. Changing the snubber to a useful load allows for MORE work to be done (it's not the same thing!). It is a Loving Giving Independent nonlinear path. It is breaking the arbitrary symmetry. It is nonlinear in several ways. It is in addition to the primary loop. And the work that can be done because of it in the load is relative to the size of the load in that path. It also can result in several other nonlinear experiences (like thermal dynamics). And again, it can be multiplied while making additional positive impact upon the primary loop as I have shown for years. 'Multiplied' in repeating with additional loops off the secondary loop.

This is only possible in the third part of electrical engineering: the nonlinear reactive side. It is rightly considered impossible if you are limited to merely linear science, or nonlinear resistive. Naturally you guys always want to make everything linear or the nonlinear clamped down with resistors. Now we can use resistors in the end to make final measurements, but we can't have a properly nonlinear reactive science and processes with resistive clamps at the heart of the process--as they are mutually exclusive and two different systems. They can be part of different loops in a many-body system like Gabriel Kron wrote: "A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author's years-long search." A linear or nonlinear resistive body are closed paths. Only the nonlinear reactive allows for a truly open path to the ether. The closed path/loop is Kirchhoff territory. The open path is Faraday, real Maxwell, Tesla, Kron, Barrett, etc. You can't mix these together and try and make them the same thing just because they are out of phase and connected in a floating ground relationship. That is what makes the independent.

This may sound all theoretical and that is why I have illustrated this with motors, coils, capacitors for the last 15 years. This IS the original electromagnetic theory. It IS the advanced electromagnetic theory today as I have quoted a tiny sample. The motive for it's suppression is well understood by members of these forums. There have been plenty of people bringing forth these processes in patent and demonstration over the last 150 years. I'm not making this stuff up. I am quoting these people and replicating their claims (even Benitez). You can mock it all you want but it is real history. I just got a physical copy of Maxwell's original book in the mail today because I am an armature historian and publisher of that time period.

I gave this video as a test of sorts as well. I knew some would mock me for it as we can see already. Some would over-extend themselves and make themselves look silly AGAIN. You see it really doesn't matter how much free energy is experienced. Some people only want a lot and they will attack you if you give them less than what they want. But I say, start with a little and admit it. Call it what it is. Then when you receive this as a gift with thankfulness you will understand the difference between the selfish circuit and loving paths and be in a place to receive more grace as your love grows 

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.

[poynt99]

That's all very nice Rick,


But when it comes down to the bench; if one builds your brushless DC fan setup with a charge battery, how does one know if they have succeeded in producing free energy?

[rickfriedrich]

That's convenient to say while you nevertheless argue from your assumptions based upon such theory. You can't get around this Darren. Either you accept the limited truncated linear Maxwell theory or you see it as limited as Maxwell himself showed from the real 20 equations. What you say is the former. This is why I pressed G along these lines. If your foundation is making free energy impossible then people need to know this.

You want real world observations, then go look up what has been proven in the Labs along these lines over the last 70 years. You can replicate those examples. Then you will see that I am doing this a lot more practical and easier.

The claims are not merely devices. They pertain to how it works. Without a foundation our words and testing is meaningless. It's like the gender craze debate. If someone just wants to call themselves a horse when they are a man, then what is the point of talking at all? If you come here with assuming, as you have, then you will go out with what you go into it with. My two posts cover this enough to justify my point here. Everything you assume or claim needs justification as well.

Since we are not together in the real world, and you were not there at my videos or meetings to actually the "background" then this is purely theoretical anyway. There is no science being done on this forum or through this forum. It is merely an exchange of ideas, therefore theoretical. If you want real world then you have to experiment yourself or observe someone else very carefully (as well as thoroughly know the details of the parts, environment, meters (and calibration, etc.).

From your statement about the bulbs your "observations" leave you with zero credibility.

They have to answer that question for themselves. Now you can see why the theory is important. They really have to know what is going on in order to properly judge. You have come from a very limited perspective and that is why you made the statement AS you did. You assumed several things. This is why I went to such lengths to show you the basis for your assumptions. If I power all of New York city from such output, you will just say it is part of the input energy.  That is why I didn't give a big example in these several videos. Just enough to foster these responses that disregard additional output. But notice I wrote the other day that you all need to understand what the real efficiency of a motor is before you go into this. I wrote that days before that comment was put on my youtube comments today. So then when you have determined that the input energy is causing mechanical work to be done with very small percentage of losses--say motor is 98% efficient at 30W--and you modify the circuit so that it runs the same but additionally puts out (in an independent loving path loop) 10% or 50% or 90% of the input energy, then you know you have free energy Darren. But that is why I also wrote that you guys will probably never agree upon the efficiency of a motor so that no matter how much electrical output is generated in addition to the motor drive it will always be considered as a fraction of the input energy. And this is exactly what Brad did today in saying the fan was 50% efficient. So you exaggerate the bulbs light by 100 times, and Brad the fan efficiency (not that bad by bad enough). And that's my point in all this...

I haven't been arguing so much from theory, as much as real world past observations.
As such, it comes down to the bench; if one builds your brushless DC fan setup with a charge battery, how does one know if they have succeeded in producing free energy?

[rickfriedrich]

No Darren, it is not nice at all. It is a massive conspiracy for the purpose to intentionally deceive millions of students over the last 140 years resulting in perpetuating slavery. Your brushing it off shows your unwillingness to consider the founding pioneers of our essential electrical systems. Stienmitz and many others could be added to that list of pioneers. So far I see no evidence that any of you, who consider yourselves as experts, are actually experts in that or even know what your training is based upon. All I hear is basic level engineering that is purely linear. You need to stay on the conventional alternative energy forums that deal with DC and basic AC systems if you want to insist upon linear perspectives only.
I have answered the last part in the last post.

That's all very nice Rick,
But when it comes down to the bench; if one builds your brushless DC fan setup with a charge battery, how does one know if they have succeeded in producing free energy?