Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[gyulasun]

Rick,

I do not participate in your game you are playing here. You try to create a situation which would make it impossible
for the forum members to ascertain what is the truth on the COP of your setup. And you try to ridicule any member 
here who dare to ask about the real performance of your setup. 
Of course you did neglect my point from my Reply #568 when I wrote you had not written measured results in your
text but a conditional question ("would 0.5W on the bulbs be acceptable to me on these bigger bulbs"?). 
And then on the following day you already referred to your own conditional question as a fact that you had already
answered my measurement request, as if you had already stated the 0.5W as measured.  Yes, 0.5W for 8 bulbs would be
very good for you  because 4W is already gives COP>1  BUT what if the brightness
involved is less than 0.5W for each bigger bulb? If you do not measure it at each bulbs, then you simply do not know. 

You wrote this on gain for your setup:

"Anyway, if resonance is a gain in the sense that a series tank circuit is actually a "multiplication" or
"amplification of voltage" WHILE AMPERAGE REMAINS THE SAME AS INPUT AMPERAGE, or parallel tank circuits are  a
"multiplication" or "amplification of amperage" WHILE VOLTAGE REMAINS THE SAME AS INPUT AMPERAGE, then
the gain is seen as the voltage or amperage divided by the input amount. So if I have 9V at 25ma input and 250V at
25ma circulating with the regular frequency generator I then have 27 times gain. And if I add the gate driver and have
1300V with the same 25ma then I have 144 times gain. This follows the idea of the gain in Q or quality factor for
the both parts (cap and inductor) combined (if one of them has a low Q it brings down the combined as I deliberately
did with the cap to keep things safe)."

The problem is you do not consider the phase angle between the 1300V coil voltage and the coil current: In a
resonant LC circuit they never happen simultaneously but nearly with 90 degree phase difference, coil current lags
coil voltage. So the real or average power is nowhere near what you imply in your text. There is no any instant 
when the current has a high peak amplitude whenever the 1300V peak to peak voltage is also present across the coil.
You have a voltage gain and voltage is not power or energy in itself.
And when you consider the phase angle, then power should be estimated by P=VxIxcos(phi) where V and I the RMS
values and phi is the phase angle.
And when the loaded Q remains relatively high then the phase angle may remain close to 90 degree so its cos(phi)
value will reduce the power value significantly. (i.e. suppose phi=88° then cos88°=0.0348 will be the multiplier in the power formula).

Of course you will not care about this fact.  But the phase angle in AC power estimation is one of the key factors.
This is why careful power measurements should be done.  Obviously the measurements at 1.15 MHz can be very difficult,
this is why I mentioned DC current and voltage
measurements for the LED bulbs after a full wave rectifier.  Power loss in the diodebridges can be easily estimated.

Of course any setup shown in a video can be faked, this can be true. How about to minimize this possibility?

How about rectifying the output of all the 8 (or your choice) bigger receiver units (omit the LED bulbs from their output)
and collect the 8 (or any you choose) DC outputs into a common puffer capacitor of say 10 milliF or more as desired? 
Then this DC voltage could feed your gate driver IC and also a low power square wave generator to drive the input
of the gate driver. The 8 (or more) receiver units should be able to maintain the charge level in the puffer capacitor the
gate driver IC and the square wave generator is consuming because you hinted at a COP of at least over 10. 
(Based on your text: "So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input.")   

This claimed COP value would surely serve the use of a DC/DC converter to have a stable DC supply available from its output to fully replace your regulated power supply.  Even one single 3W LED bulb could be run off one of the bigger
receiver coils separately to show certain brightness.  The input of this converter would receive energy from
the big puffer capacitor, closing the loop. This is what I suggested to RomeroUK years ago and he then showed a video
in which he carried his running mot-gen setup looped via a DC/DC converter with himself while walking...   

I wonder whether you are going to consider my looping suggestion or write about again my scepticism or about
bent scepticism  . You can say a self running setup can also be faked and this is true but if you show a certain
start-up procedure we could agree on in advance, openly on this forum, then faking could be minimized at least.

I would kindly suggest building this self running setup for members a.king and benfr because they have the original coils set. 


Gyula

[forest]

Rick
Within plenty of your long videos ,which  one is the best to watch to understand concept ? English is not my native language and watching few 1hour long videos is too much for me
Can you explain how you move the phase angle between voltage and current in output resonant circuit to get output power independent of input resonance ?

[Thaelin]

  Hi all:
    I have to chime in here as I was one of them in attendance. I went to Lodi, Ca for his two day work shop. I went to see one thing and found another as well. I sat there in disbelief as he added more and more output coils drawing a load and the input stayed the same. Just the output wattage was going up.
    What is in the book is what was setup. He had to stop adding more output coils due to not wanting to blow the scope used for the readings.


Not much more I can say. No video, no pictures other than the ones I took, just live right in front of all of us.


thay

[rickfriedrich]

Yes I entirely agree Mr. Frederik. But as you can see my points are foundational and almost everyone is wrong about them. So until they are agreed to then people will just be making assumptions one way or another without sufficient reason. This leads to deceptions wasted time, money, and faith. I spend a lot of time picking up the pieces of countless people wrongly harmed by these practices on these groups. So while you all want OU and want to brush past these foundational points I say to you that you will never get anywhere while you practice the bias/prejudice principle which will lead you to premature conclusions.

I have provided a tool for people to experiment with in the kit. I am not open sourcing this kit freely on this forum. I have shared a lot in so many ways over the years, but I do have to earn a living. Anyway, it is opensourced in the way that people can play order it and learn many things from it. As I said, I have explained the points, and even given videos, and people can make their own systems. No, they can't judge my systems without having my systems.

As for the specifics, you have to start with the other foundation point in my questions about resonance. Can resonance be a gain in a series or parallel tank circuit (where the voltage or amperage is multiplied or amplified) in the context of the systems we are focusing on here (that is where we are tapping into the environmental effects produced by the amplified oscillations in the tank)? If you don't bother to benefit or extract that oscillatory energy gain from the tank then I can see where you think it is nothing real and it is merely apparent gain. And I guess that is the point that people need to experience. But my fundamental question is whether resonance is merely a transformer effect or accumulation effect as people imply or state when they disbelieve OU possibilities. This is perhaps the most important question for this entire forum don't you think? I would be surprised if it has not been brought up already. Establishing one way or the other will help people settle the question about these kinds of systems and claims. For if it is merely a transformer or accumulation process then where would any gain come from? And this is exactly how people think. So I am trying to bring out the real issues here. It is not about any data or facts actually, all of which cannot be proven to be real over the internet. It is about whether people know one way or the other the answer to this question. The example claims from Tesla are illustrative where he said he was able to have a large 2" steel bar become so resonantly triggered with mere drops of water at it's resonant frequency until it vibrated so violently that it broke in two. Or that he had a small pocket vibrator placed on a 10 story building frame that soon brought the whole structure into violent shaking threatening to destroy it all like the 2" wide steel bar. Where these merely accumulations of energy building up so that all resulting action was merely additive of input energy given? 1 to 1? Or did a small input at the natural frequency trigger a huge result? This everyone needs to experience. But if resonance is merely a transformer or accumulatory action then Tesla himself was fundamentally deceived and a deceiver in his core teachings. Anyway, this is the context of any such experiments. Any numbers thrown around are pointless unless you build a proper foundation.

The problem is that you will never get most people to commit to building upon an honest foundation. Those wanting free energy are so desperate to get it that most really don't care about such things. And unfortunately they then can engage in bias and over-believe claims or the own results. On the other hand, those wishing to disprove OU claims and concepts for whatever reasons, while many times appearing to be professional and sound, nevertheless contradict themselves and deviate from these points I am making.

So what I am doing here is setting up standards and protocols so as to make it easy for everyone to spot and disregard frequent fallacies. And it is far more important to me for everyone to have a sound foundation and methodology than whether anyone on this forum gets free energy. For this also affects everything else in your life. What you go into something with is what you come out with.

As for what goes in between, I suggest you read all of what I have even shared over the last few days. I have also drawn attention to specific things of that nature in relation to what I have shared about DVD7 and about this resonance process. But again, you may not like the fact that I am teaching from a themes approach rather than urging people to look to some set of parts for their salvation. You guys on the groups are messed up. You think that if you give people some parts and tell them to do something with them that hopefully they can come up with some result as if they have not assumptions. I have witnessed countless electrical engineers automatically dampen out the critical phenomena appearing in a system because of their assumptions and experience only to then claim "see there is nothing special here!" They don't even realize what they are doing. It's like the blindfolded man touching different parts of the elephant and concluding different things about what he is touching. What you go into with is what you come out with. But understand the key themes and then you can make most any parts work for you. I don't see you appreciating that point I have been making. What you suggest is too mechanical and it just hasn't worked over all these years. I started out with such assumptions and realized after witnessing the effects of that approach for many years that unless people know where to begin and get a feel for the themes and ends sought after, they will wrongly interpret their results. They will actually think they are getting bad results when they actually are demonstrating something else. For example, people negatively charged their batteries and many people assumed their batteries were ruined because when they later tried to recharge them (after being discharged) the conventional charger would not charge them up as before. If they kept it there long enough it would eventually charge them and convert the battery back to positive. But because they didn't know that the not only were mistaken about this result but missed a huge opportunity to benefit from an actual good result they were unaware of. And that was because of lack of information or ignoring details in the mad rush for free energy. So if you post some numbers and parts the same sort of thing happens. Then you get people mixing in their assumptions and there is no benefit in the end.

As for the factual level, I have found it far more persuasive to show existing technology people have had in their homes over the last 100 years. Starting with the many patents and also signaling out real commercial products that actually use these processes. So you separate the final purpose of the actual product and focus in on one or more unique processes that show the point. This is a hobby of mine which I get into more or less in my meetings. The patents are an excellent way to start and illustrate that approach, while real-life examples of existing products drives the points home. I find that there is little point to try and create something new when we have so much to work with already. In our case here were are looking at a transmitter and receiver in which there are countless examples over the last 100 years. Again, as I have repeatedly stated, you can take these products and continue to use them as they were intended, and you tap energy from them in another way that people have ignored as part of the losses. For example, I tap a plasma column that is for the creation of appealing light that only draws 8W continuous. I still run it as intended and without making it change at all. It still does exactly the same thing. But now I use it as an energy pump and power other loads (like what I did with the motors charging batteries for free). This is a dipole and I can collect a lot of energy from this as Don Smith showed in one of his patents. But coming back to my previous point, if I assume various things I will get almost nothing out of it (as most people experience). So I have to teach by the themes approach to get them to look beyond the specific parts and understand the idea to be realized first so then you use the parts as tools for a specific end in a specific context. The mainstream college level person will not be able to even agree to the themes presented, and would never be able to follow the instructions to make it do anything special because they have been so rooted in bias and so full of assumptions and pressures to conclude prematurely that it doesn't matter what you tell them to do or even show them. They would be in a state of cognitive dissonance and just block it out with the result that they would then conclude that the opposite is proven. They have been deeply manipulated for their entire lives and are as much brainwashed as the victims of the craziest cult you could think of. It is very powerful. You say, no way, if you demonstrated something they would surely concede to the results. Haha, I have seen one case where a 60 year old man in Germany, I believe a respected scientist, throw a fit and run out of the meeting like a 2 year old brat after we demonstrated some things. But here I am not talking so much of demonstrating things but of giving people instructions as you request. Believe me, they will find a way to kill all the unique effects no matter how much you tell them. They will make an open system closed. They will measure only the constant current and disregard the impulse energy (that is, they will measure after the switch is turned on and before the switch is turned off). They will dampen the resonance. They will make two bodies into one and tie the grounds together. They will disregard the reactive and focus only on the resistive. And the fact that they have so much existing technology and cannot recognize how to tap more energy off of what they have shows their limitations. After years of helping such people I have seen a better way. It is like good old repentance. You can argue matters back and forth and try to convince someone of a matter but you can never force someone to admit something (however I have figured out to force someone to admit it to themselves even if they don't admit it externally). But if they get humbled and find God then they can become a new creation and then you find them all open and reasonable. So in this area something like that needs to happen. Usually you have establish a credibility thing with them where you play their game of authorities. They have to come to the place where they are actually willing to consider things opposite to their assumptions. But since they have been trained only to gratify their assumptions it is almost impossible to help them out of the cult that has gripped their soul.

There are many examples to look at and consider specifically. First thing to ask however, are there common products that are not capturing and using a lot of potential energy while we use them for another purpose. Come to grips with that question first. For example, impulse motors? Take my fan kit video. I take billions of fans in computers or larger that produce a given CFM for a given amount of energy input. Are these fans state of the art? Are they not as efficient as they can be? What if I move around one diode (and add in a second diode because there are two transistors) and now charge a load like a second battery while I have the same cfms and same input? What does that tell you about the mainstream world? I have been showing this for about 14 years now to tens of thousands of people and still it is not changed mainstream beliefs. They don't want people to realize what that implies. They do not want people to get any electrical benefit from what they only want people to have in a motor. So it is believed that all of the energy is being used to power the magnetic action. Yet we can have equal electrical output from this process.
Examples:
1. Free electrical output that ignored in motors.
2. Free electrical output from all types of dipoles, anything from magnetostriction rods like radar or sonar to plasma columns.
3. Ignored inductor fluxing from resonance tank circuits.
4. Ignored capacitive fluxing benefits from resonance tank circuits in making the capacitor a water cell (Stan M)(key is to condition cell into a capacitor). Combined with points 2 and 3 allows for a very high output OU system.
The list goes on and on. If you have ears to hear and eyes to see you can now go off with the parts you have at home to prove these things out to yourself. The diagrams are all over this forum for years. The problem isn't missing diagrams or in lacking ideal parts, but is with the bias principle and that this forum is completely lacking in any foundation. I told Stefan years ago that you need to make these lists completely different. You start with working systems and work the other way, rather than start with all these well-maybe-there-is-something-here approach where then everyone jumps in with their opinions and sloppy ideas. There is no sense that people have the themes rightly understood. So if you did this right there would be no way trolls and disinfo people could prevail. This is why I see these forums as worse than useless as people are purposely cycled and spit out as overwhelmed and confused.

Anyway, as I read you I still think you are too focused on an over-simplistic parts approach to this problem. I have given enough details for people to do that if they want, but I know exactly what will result if I play that game. My goal here is for you to all overcome your bias, I care little if people have free energy. This is only of small importance to your entire life. Maybe you will accidentally stumble upon a result with a given set of results and then you will hold those parts as almost a sacred deity. Woe to you if it is ever stolen or goes out of tune because you don't understand why or how it works to be able to replicate it again. That is not an exaggeration. But what if you understand that themes and can then use thousands of parts to make the goods happen? This is what I teach now. This is exactly what Don said. This is what he did with the nonlinear simulation software and designed all of his models with and which required very little adjustment when made in the real world. Yes this is all mathematically predictable. So while college level teaching prejudices you to think these gains are impossible, with a slight of hand they contradict themselves in allowing students to work with the software that shows overenergy flows in circuit relationships (but only as a negative thing to suppress as it destroys the semiconductors). This is the joke of all jokes. But the students are so mystified by the central dogma that you cannot get anything more than from your input that they don't even realize that they do actually in the very software they use or some of the experiments that they engage in. And some people are just laughing at this fact. Then you leave college and get a job using that software to troubleshoot such problems. One day an old man comes along and draws attention to these contradictions and perhaps the technician realizes that he has been demonstrating this his whole career! So if you are looking for an example, just create your own and you will find that there are almost infinite combinations of things that will demonstrate this. Like I said, this list is so 90's all this is old news. You guys laugh at Don Smith and stumble over a few things he has said, but he spelled these things out in the 90's. The proud stumbled and the humble guys on the other side of the world made it all work. People just don't get it. So that is what I have written so much on the foundational problems. All this will force you to be very detailed and accountable in your thinking and words. Take it or leave it. I have done what I can to help. I will never attempt to prove anything over the internet. I give you recommendations to try. I point out facts you already know. You can let this help you or you will be offended by something I write and ignore everything else. It's up to you. It's kind of like the story of Aristotle talking to a guy who denied his own existence and he replied he will just go and talk to someone who actually exists. There is no point doing anything more.
So you have your content given here. Start at the real beginning and let's see if any of you can do real science. Like I said, I deal with real technicians all over the world who make real products and admit real 'anomalies'. I don't care what colleges say when they are bought and paid for by special interests. I will watch and see what you can do from here. If I get time I will try and hold people accountable to these self-evident foundations. What more do I need to say or do than lay a proper foundation that gives you almost infinite options to test these things out for yourselves. I can't prove to you anything, because only you can prove something to yourself. So forsake the 2 dimensional view of parts and always consider the total environmental effects on any process. Look beyond your prejudices and realize that there will always be more to learn about what you think you are observing. A little study of history will drive that truth home to you. So don't over-simplify and don't needlessly over-complicate. You can pick any of the 4 points mentioned above, or many more.
All the best!

Dear Rick,

The assertion and the counter-assertion are both useless, as long as there is no possibility at all to carry out any proof here.
In order to accomplish this, a factual analysis of the basic effect must first be generated, where a hypothesis is given about the properties and origin of the effect. Subsequently, the hypothesis is confirmed by the presentation of an experiment, either in theoretical nature or as a practical implementation. Then others can jump on this bandwagon and perform the experiments themselves to confirm or disprove the claim/hypothesis. This is simply a typical scientific approach.

I respect your work and the many hours you put into this project. But what is really missing between the many words you write here is a factual concise discussion of the physical conditions and the assumption of how the overunity effect arises. Also missing is the circuit diagram of a circuit that produces this effect. Why don't you just provide it? This would be valuable because then the discussion goes to a factual level. With the circuits that users Itsu have tried so far, the effect could not be proven. This only leads to the conclusion that they do not correspond to what you are using or that the experiment was not performed the way you are doing it.

[rickfriedrich]

This makes me very happy and it is many statements like this that have kept me in this work. There are humble souls all around the world that just want to get down to it, and if they can just be honestly directed they can succeed in these things. This has been a long process for myself to also be demystified from all the disinfo and distractions. But after years of interaction with good experimenters I have come to improved teaching on these matters. I still have a solid 2 months more work to better refine my teaching and fully illustrate my points, so it is a work in progress. I learn from everyone, even from G
Thank you,
Rick

Hi Rick.
I'd like to thank you. In the last 15 months I followed all your videos and ordered Dons Book and also the Resonance kit. Struggled a long time with all the amazing informations (because of my lack of english language), but after some weeks I had the first success!!
No doubt anymore. It is all real and I can see it clearly directly on my table. 15 years of hope and failures again and again..and now success! I am very happy. Hope to overcome the next step and get a working Don device. Best regards..Markus