Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[hartiberlin]

I've just received mail from Mr. Gear.
His team tested Rick's two and three battery system and measurement showed underunity in both test.
However, they also purchased through third person Rick's kit and will analyze it and make transient power measurement within next few days, along with some more complicated tests involved looped reactive power.
For the tests been precise, team has been split into two.
Every group will conduct its own methods with state of the art equipement.
Result of each group will be evaluated by Mr. Gear and his consultants.

The goal of test is determine does motor/load kit is COP>1, or OU, and if not, how efficient they are.
I dont have information what kit they purchase and Mr. Gear explaimed that he will reveal only test results, but not data and videos made during test.
Data and videos will remain in company possesions and can be viewed only through bussines agreement, after Rick will be contacted if test will be positive.
At least he will release final conclusion in public, which can not hurt company interest.

I think this is fair from his side. At the end he represents company interests and even final conclusion is much.

If test show positive results, Rick will be contacted and he will be presented with bussines proposal.

From his words test will be conducted very professional and with top gear which exists.
He mentioned possible complex measurements involved reactive power loop, but lots of what he spoke is out of my league.

So, stefan, you asked me to build it. I cant.
But found person who can and it is not problem for him.
Actually, I will be glad if results turns positive, and this whole story ends well.
Finally, Mr. Gear has possibility to do.it and I believe he will.

He said that every investigation of his which turns out even partially success was good for company and bussines deal has been made.
Until now he did not find true self runner but he found few very clever solutions which company paid well and inventors were satisfied.
True results were published through real patents which can actually be build and work.

I hope this will help,

Cheers!

So what sense makes it, if they just said, they did the test and will not show any evidence of it lol...
My friend did also build the same setup as in Rick´s latest video with the 2 brushless motors and he also got it to work.
I hope I can convince him to show a bit of it...
Regards, Stefan.

[poynt99]

(snip...)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.(snip...)

I'm totally fine with any efficiency motor you choose. If it is a 98% efficient motor to start with, then fine. It has no bearing on the final outcome as far as I am concerned.


Now concerning the highlighted portion of the quote, I ask the following:


How does one determine the percentage of input energy being put out in the flyback loop?

[rickfriedrich]

Darren,
That is the point of the debate here. You are claiming that any output in the negative loop is a faction of the input or that the primary loop/forward phase is one part and the negative loop the remaining. So if the motor is 98% efficient with a 100W input and if the negative loop produces 10W of work, or 50 or 100W then obviously the loop is not a fraction of the input. Or if the batteries can be rotated around, etc. The flyback loop is not part of the input energy. Read the posts I wrote tonight.

I'm totally fine with any efficiency motor you choose. If it is a 98% efficient motor to start with, then fine. It has no bearing on the final outcome as far as I am concerned.
Now concerning the highlighted portion of the quote, I ask the following:
How does one determine the percentage of input energy being put out in the flyback loop?

[poynt99]

...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...

The above quote is from your post (your phrasology and use of the "percentage of input energy" reference, not mine).

How does one determine the percentage part of your quote?

The "independent loving path loop" is the flyback loop consisting of the flyback diode, the charge battery, and the coil winding, is it not?

[rickfriedrich]

Darren,
Context is important. To be more clear let's say "percentage of" what the "input energy" took to power the motor and the losses. Percentage comparison only, not percentage of it. I've been saying in several different ways that the input energy is separate from what is charging the battery. It is a different phase and direction (and type). Again, percentage as in if it takes 100W to run the motor that is 98% efficient, and 10W (which is merely 10%) or 50W or 100W is produced in the load or charging battery then obviously the 10W or 50 or 100W is not part of the input energy. "Percentage" of the electrical output in the battery is not important. I am merely talking about the hypothetical that if it takes so much W to run the motor then there is nothing left to produce an electrical output. Bottom line.

Yes the coil is part of that loop if I am understanding where you are going with that question. But it is out of phase and the negative energy is, if resulting in more work done than what can be accounted for from the input energy (100W minus the work of the motor and losses), shows that it is truly independent and above unity.

The above quote is from your post (your phrasology and use of the "percentage of input energy" reference, not mine).

How does one determine the percentage part of your quote?

The "independent loving path loop" is the flyback loop consisting of the flyback diode, the charge battery, and the coil winding, is it not?