Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[rickfriedrich]

While that was A point it was not THE point you were making. I do not tolerate rude or baseless accusatory comments. Your point was to call the video and all my videos fraud. And you assumed the motor was 50% efficient when the company said it is 94%. You are always assuming the worst in a very arrogant way.

No the video doesn't have the input jumping all over the place. Obviously it is an impulse motor however. Ideally a battery is better for this experiment but this was what people wanted. The point was that the comparison/conversion was the same. Also, the point was to show one change with advantageous results. That was done and you just can't accept it. Instead you just can't keep yourself from attacking. But who made you the king? Again, you just keep putting your foot in your mouth.

By the way you come across you would have to already know the answer to your questions. Sounds like you are just repeating what you have heard from other people. But when you do that Brad, you destroy your credibility.

The CFMs reading was just in the same spot to do the comparison to show that it was exactly the same with the two fans. It was not showing all the CFMs because I was only on one area.

I make my own power measurements in many ways. Yes I have all the appropriate power analyzers that I don't show in my videos. It is up to everyone to do that for themselves. What I did show was that I was reducing the input energy and also charging a battery significantly. It was not as much as with my other motors with improved circuitry, but it did show that for the same CFMs it took less input and did some charging. Someone else did this and got the same results.

What I got into the battery over time is relative to the size and condition of the battery as I have always said. See my last post for details about that being nonlinear. But if I get anything, then that is an improvement over nothing. Yes if I can run this off a battery and rotate batteries around then that is amazing. That I have done for 14 years now with such fans with a variety of different circuits. That is old news Brad. As I wrote, thousands of people have used these fans all over the world. One guy makes his entire living selling them (and I don't get anything for showing that).

You don't get it Brad. If the fan was 80% efficient then that is not the point. If you can make it take less energy and also put out more work than that is free work. Yes I know that we want self-runners here and the whole bit. But you won't even appreciate any improvement. You don't know what percentage it is. But you do know that it is more work than normal and that was my point. It also allowed for you and others to mock me for showing a significant gain. That was also my point. Now we can see your attitudes that automatically reject positive demonstrations. You guys demand meters and I showed a meter with a controlled experiment that is easy to do and which someone already did here. So that proves that meter readings mean nothing to you guys. If I pull out my Fluke power analyzers you will just reject anything I show in the same way. All will just be one circle argument that it is impossible to have over unity.

You are wanting too much all at once Brad. You just blindly rush into a China shop like bull and have no regard for details. The object is not to prove anything with a video. It is for others to do such things for themselves. There was nothing hard in that. I said that could be done with all the BLDC fans. What you are looking for is something to disprove. You are not at all interested in learning about OU or expanding your experience. You have figured out everything you expect to learn as your words imply. You have a very over simplistic electrical theory and it is not open to the real world.

If the fan is 94% efficient then reducing that input energy makes it even more efficient. Now the losses are still there. The negative energy does not mean that there is no heat produced as before. So the battery charging is not part of that forward loop calculation. That is the other point you don't get. It wasn't used before. And now it is. But read my last post and realize that there is a vast difference between looping it back with a diode and powering a load. And the size of the load also changes because this is nonlinear. And all these words do not even properly represent how the energy works.

Now I do know what the electrical output is when I know the exact capacity of my batteries and charge them and discharge them over time. Or I can use various capacitor banks also. Or I can use transformers, etc.

You have part numbers as I wrote.
You have efficiency numbers as mentioned. But that is not important.
You have your own output measurements. In your case it is whatever you assume beforehand.
I claim OU in the real world for myself. Such things can only be determined in the real world Brad.
The EE guys are a dime a dozen. I know more EE guys than I can count. Apparently there is a difference with the guys that you know and the EEs I know. I know regular and higher level EEs (some of which are at the very top). There is a big difference. Just as there is with those working with linear processes and those working with nonlinear advanced projects. If you can't understand Barrett's works that I have mentioned then you are not in a place to talk about EEs. I have no problem with what any EE says as I will agree with it. It is not what the common EEs say, but what they are not aware of because of their limited studies and experience. I know very specialized EEs doing very critical work in industry and military that work with this processes. Again, if you are open to learning that then read Barrett on electromagnetism as he is a leading authority at the advanced levels (not college level like most people are limited to).

Yes you live in a syfy world as you keep assuming and expecting a video to prove OU. Too much tv and chat time. You need to get to the bench and spend time with others on the bench. But only after you understand how to evaluate your own methodologies and assumptions. Study the history of electromagnetism for a start. Actually read Faraday and Maxwell and hear them out in their own words. Do the same experiments. Then notice what others took away from what they wrote. Actually read Tesla. You complained that people like me misrepresent him. Well I have read everything he wrote that is in the public domain very carefully. And I have done his related experiments and demonstrated them to others. Again, read Barrett on that. This is already proven out Brad. Yes I am just trying to make it easier because I doubt that most or possibly any of the active members here could fully understand those words or experiments. While I wish someone more capable than I could do this instead, at least I am trying to help here.

No Brad, we all make claims in life, in fact every day. Rarely do others expect you to prove the claims you make. And they would find you very strange if you went around addressing them as you do me when they make claims. "Prove to me Bruce, that it was a white male who spilled coffee on you at lunch."    "Prove to me Rick, over the internet, that you do power measurements while proving OU!" "Prove to me Brad, that you even exist!" You are so incensed that you can't even give up on that delusion. Really, all you want to do is try and disprove OU. That is your mission. For you can easily show these things to yourself. That's all I ever hope to do. I don't need recognition. I really don't care what people claim they prove or disprove over the internet. I'm only interested in the real world. I love to get information over the internet as we all do. But that is something different than proof. The only proof we can have here is what you guys have proven so far with this silliness. You keep demonstrating it over and over. And that's the point I can prove...

And that was my point of my comment on your video Rick.

In your video,your input energy was jumping all over the place,so how did you calculate your input energy?
Second-you do not know how efficient your fan motor is,so once again,how are you making your energy calculations?.How much energy dose it take to move X amount of CFM's of air?,and how much energy was your fan using to achieve this?. Your motor may have been using(i believe in the video,the best i could make out was 24v @ 1.2 amp's) 28.8 watts,but how much energy is required to have an air flow of(i think it was) 1600 CFM at atmospheric pressure.
Third-You had no output measurements at all as far as your inductive kickback output go's,so once again,how are you making your power measurements to claim OU?.

So lets say your fan is 80% efficient(highly unlikely),and your inductive kickback output is 10%. You still have a loss of 10% to heat,and this is a best case scenario. In actuality,your fan would be 50-60% efficient at best,and we(including yourself)have no idea as to what your electrical output was,nor do we have an accurate P/in for your fan either.

So, we have no P/in measurement--
We have no fan efficiency value--
We have no output measurements--
But you claim OU 
You also claim the EE guys have no idea what there talking about.
You say we live in a sci-fi make believe world 

I think you have it all backward Rick,as it seems that it is you making claims of the (know so far) impossible,and you do this without any data at all to back up your claim's.

No Rick,it is not us living in the land of make believe 


Brad

[Mannix]

quote from RF
" I'm not interested in trying to get inside of people's heads."

This is harder to believe than the confusion about lead acid batterys sweetspot/temperature variations .

There are many of us ,myself included who have been inspired by initial results of "free energy" using lead acid batterys.

Only to be dissapointed by not being able to get useful work from the system.

That is not to say the battery does not gain voltage because it does . Surface charge is the term used by those who are influenced by this in the "real world".

It still mught be fun for people to buy and experiment with ricks kits ,after all fun and learning is what life is about . Just keep your expectations in check.

Perhaps JB'S spiritual self has infused itself in another who has not so much self awareness.

Dont we all love wikipedia?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_charge

[rickfriedrich]

Got to love the humor
I have worked closely with batteries all my life, and for the last 15 years with battery charging. I think I know a thing or two about surface charge. I probably have at least one conversation every day about related subjects.
You have to understand how to properly determine the actual capacity of a battery. I have 6 industrial chargers that do that with multiple resistive loads and programing. Once you know the battery's actual capacity then you can do full test runs and see this. This is why I can't do YouTube videos of proper tests that take days or weeks. But I have recorded very long videos.
We are not dealing with surface charge. You may be dealing with desulfating processes, or pushing up voltages on batteries that have no real capacity.
We can run different loads as well. But with batteries you need to run over time when you know what you are doing.

That is not to say the battery does not gain voltage because it does . Surface charge is the term used by those who are influenced by this in the "real world".

[poynt99]

We can run different loads as well.

Indeed. Where might we see this?

[rickfriedrich]

Well somewhere in the real world 

Indeed. Where might we see this?