Rick, Rick, Rick... What are we going to do with you amigo?
You refuse to listen to reason.

Let me try saying it in a different way, but I know I am probably wasting my time:
If a person really has something unusual, they should be able to demonstrate it in a reasonable
and clear and concise way.

Nick,
I didn't get into any of Dr. Stiffler was doing so I have no comment on that. So you say you replicated some of his stuff. Does that mean you succeeded in finding something new and useful, or merely tried to do what he was claiming but didn't succeed? As for unusual frequencies in different locations there are enough reportings of such to warrant investigation. There are, however, always many experiments going on around the world and you can never be sure why you are picking up signals these days. This brings out a related subject of learning how to harvest from existing environmental sources. My goal in the end of all this is to show people how to tap energy from all their local environments and not have to go to too much trouble to do that.

As for making a particular setup there are many options. Make coils with high Q, use high quality capacitors for highest gains. Ideally you don't have receiver coils but just a proper L2 coil. Actually, ideally you just have electronics parts after you learn how this all works and just design what you want with simulation software. What I did with this kit is as far as I really could do without crossing some lines. It shows people enough so that they can take it from there on their own. So this isn't really hard. It just takes an open mind and some patience to learn the relationships. It is a tool to come to some conclusions on. I will try and get the new website up this weekend and that should help more.

Quote from: NickZ on July 12, 2019, 11:08:02 AM
   Rick:  Thanks for the reply. Yes, I have that, which I mentioned. It just so happens that the secondary of Tesla coil is tuned to the 1.2MHz frequency. It's frequency can be controlled to a certain point, by adding or removing coils on the secondary, (or by connecting to different taps along the secondary). Or by inserting ferrite into the Tesla secondary coil. It's output is dependent on the input power, but normally it's around 4 to 6000v. My question was about the specs on the receiving coils, and what is needed there.
   Dr. Stiffler was doing many different tests along the same or similar lines. And itsu, Gyula, and of our other guys here were also  involved in, long with myself. To see if the Doc's dying secret, the "diode loop", would provide for higher efficiency in lighting 120v AC 12w led bulbs. I followed and replicated some his efforts until his death. The diode loop was a very interested project. And somewhat similar with what's going on here. One important point though, the Doc found that at 13.6MHz there is a signal from the planet, (or atmosphere) that can be tapped into, so that was where he tuned his circuits to. However, that particular non man made signal may be something specific to his location, and may vary from place to place, or not, that part was not verified.
   Anyway, I still don't know just exactly what circuit is used on this project. And still need a more specific schematic, if there is one.
   I do have a 2MHz SG, Scope, multimeters, 12v batteries etz... So I'm ready to play ball...

Some people are under the mistaken notion that if someone is a PH. D. in Physics,
they must automatically have a good practical knowledge in electronics or mechanics.
That is not necessarily the case at all however.

Dr. Stiffler made a very obvious mistake in his approach. He ignored the first and second laws
of 'over unity' testing as outlined above, and in my opinion he lead himself and others down the garden path.
He could have easily avoided doing that and saved himself and various other experimenters a lot of
wasted time and effort if he had simply heeded the first and second laws of 'over unity' circuit testing.
A self-looped arrangement would have quickly shown that his circuit arrangements were not capable
of self-sustaining, and therefore probably not showing a COP >1.

PM,
Thank you.
Multiple batteries does not result in assumptions. Your point is not established. People can make assumptions about anything, but that doesn't make the thing improper. You have proved too much and therefore prove nothing by just repeating this claim.
Listen to me people, I am not saying that people shouldn't do a self-loop. That is fine. Do it. Feel it. Live it. Don't talk about it. Just do it! Wow that probably came from a Nike commercial  What I am saying is that doing that is not the only option. And you should not disregard anything else. Read what I just wrote before this post. I will also add to that:

1. Some gains are happening in the battery itself (in the battery systems) so that it becomes rather involved to try and shuffle around energy from one battery to the other. It is far easier to rotate batteries. Now I haven't heard any of you reject battery rotation as a means of self-looping, so then this is what I have done for 15 years now.

2. But again, I am also saying that the OU can be in another form of energy that does not go back to the input.

3. Or it could be less than that which could sustain rotation. For example, I run a motor to do real work that I need done (Fan), while I power another load (electrical or otherwise). Any extra output is OU even if I don't loop it around to the front. What if it is only a percentage. Is that under unity because it is not self-sustaining? All you have to do is show that the motor is running the same way as before you harvested the reactive loop for additional outputs.

And then there was silence once again on OU.com as no one wants to admit these simple facts!

Consider now your words with my point you guys ignore:
"If you truly are producing OU, then your device should be able to" produce more output than is supposedly possible in the reactive loops.  "If not, then it is not OU.  It really is that simple because then nothing then depends on analysis, only the results."

Quote from: partzman on July 12, 2019, 12:19:33 PM
RF,
Respectively, you are correct.  The test I proposed does cross a line and a very important one at that!  It is the line of TRUE OU.  On one side we have everything that is conservative that is, COP<1 and on the other side is the undeniable proof of COP>1.
When you incorporate multiple batteries in your work, this opens up the possibility of many incorrect assumptions and calculations to appear and thus raises question of the validity of any OU claims made.
If you truly are producing OU, then your device should be able to bootstrap charge a battery or capacitor totally by itself.  If not, then it is not OU.  It really is that simple because then nothing then depends on analysis, only the results.
Regards,
Pm

Well that's a good start. Like I said, I'll be posting a new website shortly that will go over a lot of things.
The problem is that you guys are set in your ways in several things. I have burst some of those bubbles but it may take a few more days to sink in. What I am trying to do is get you to take the first steps. The first step would be to tell us what you already know about OU. Why not tell us why you are hear, I mean why you suppose OU is worthy of investigation. I always start off my meetings with such introductions. Then I can try and help people from where they actually are. Here we have a Ham guy. Over there an EE. A physicist sitting there. What's your experience? OK, we don't need to cover some things because you all know such already. But since you wanted to learn this, I'll see how we can adapt the study around that. That's kind of what happens. So tell us exactly what reasons you have for believing or not believing in OU, or why you think it is probably or possibly true. What is your context?

You see I have been at this a long time dealing with many people and have realized what the obstacles in the way of learning/experiencing these things are. If you guys have not experienced this yet then how do you know what you are even looking for? I guess it is impossible to disprove OU is possible. So what can we start with? If G would answer me on this as well then wouldn't it be better that we learned the reason why he or anyone believes that OU is possible? If there is no context then this is just an impersonal game that will probably go nowhere. It just then continues to be the forum of trying to disprove OU as it always has been despite Stephan's intentions.

As for the multiple coil setup, I would not recommend making so many coils for the purpose of proving OU. Like I said, start with the Loving Paths teaching and take your typical closed loop circuit to your local "professional" to explain to you what Unity means exactly in that circuit. It has a motor in it so ask them what is possible to expect with this circuit. He tells you the brushless motor is 96% efficient. You ask him if there is any more energy that you can get out of this circuit? He says, the rest is just lost as heat. Now you know this RF guy on OU.com who brought to your attention what T. W. Barrett said in 1991 that we can harvest reactive loops as Tesla did for additional gains. So you open up the one selfish loop of the flyback diode to add an additional load in series with that now loving giving path. This is a big transformer with capacitor across the primary and another fully loaded motor across the secondary. You return to the professional and have him remeasure the primary loop and also the two other loops with his meters. He notices a major problem. He then throws a fit and runs out of the room never to be seen again! You stand there perplexed as you remember what he had said the day before. The meters showed that all the voltages and current added up on the front loop but now additional power was measured in the second and third loops. The motor was running the same, but the second motor was also running. This didn't add up. So you video it, and take a picture with the professional's meters and report it to the OU.com crew. But you are in fear of rejection because it would appear to contradict the policies of the forum. Because for 1. No OU claim is to be accepted at any costs and the purpose there is to try and disprove any such claim. And 2. Nothing but a self-looped system is of any value. But you do see that you have something. It just doesn't fit in with the skeptics arbitrary demands. Two outputs for one input is not acceptable. Then you say to yourself, "well, who really cares about what they say, they haven't even got this far yet. I'll just use this extra power while they continue to pay full price!

Quote from: Hoppy on July 12, 2019, 01:41:54 PM
Thanks again Rick for your detailed reply. However, it has not really explained how, that if I was a student of yours, how you could satisfy me that a given system of yours was running OU, given battery vagaries we have discussed. As an example, take a multiple coil and LED system like demonstrated in the video you posted and assume that I just want to experience an OU demo from you as my tutor. Also, assume that I'm not a complete rookie and that I have a good conventional grounding in electrical principles and measurement. Take me through the stages you would take to demonstrate an OU system to me at the bench so to speak, not by video.