Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[Void]

Sure these motors have some ohmical losses, they are only 95 to 97 % efficient in their best building types...
But let´s just use an example:Take a 12 Volts 7 Amphour battery that is fully charged and then contains 84 Watthours of energy.
Now power one of the Fanmotors from Rick.
My friend has the same  and they draw about 0.37 Amps in the normal mode unmodified.
that is about 4.44 Watts.Now if you run this on the 84 Wh battery this would give you about 19 hours run time.
Now when he had modified the motor as Rick did with removing the snubber diodes and using fast diodesto redirect the BackEMF pulses to a second 12 Battery, which was charged this way, the motor drew only then 0.35 to 0.36 amps and had the same torque,measured via a airflow meter.
So now do you agree if the motor now runs longer than 19 hours and also a few hours on the earlier empty second battery which was charged up and then will also run the same
motor also for another  few hours ?
So what do you call this now ?  OU or hyperefficient ?

Hi Stefan,
No, this in no way indicates over unity. It more likely indicates that the circuit change you describe above
which was made to the fan motor may have improved the fan motor's overall efficiency a little, but this
in no way necessarily indicates over unity. Just a possible improvement in the fan motor's efficiency.

All the best...

[Void]

Quote from: Void on August 06, 2019, 04:33:43 PM
Hi Brad, You need to read more carefully.  I did not state anywhere that the voltage across the coil remains the same polarity. 
I stated that the voltage across the coil when the magnetic field collapses is
the same polarity as the original applied voltage Vi, so it acts to try to keep the current flowing in the same direction
in the coil that it was flowing in before Vi was cut off. It is not of a polarity that is in opposition to the original applied voltage Vi,
so it is definitely incorrect to call it 'Back EMF' or 'Counter EMF'. Exactly as I wrote in my previous comment.

Brad was correct, that the voltage gets reversed... !! but not the current through the coil. You mixed that up...

HI Stefan. In my quote which you included in your reply, and which you were replying to, I made it clear that I never stated that the voltage across
the coil did not change polarity. Again, I never stated that anywhere. What I stated about inductive switching spikes versus
BEMF/CEMF is correct.  

[rickfriedrich]

Stefan,
Very good observations. These guys will never admit to anything being OU unless it is self-running, which means one would have to have 2 times the work done than normal (depending on how you define efficiency, COP, etc.). They will never agree to how efficient a motor is so that no matter how much gain you have they will just call it more efficient. That is why they insist upon self-running to be OU. And that is why I gave this very basic setup to draw out this debated point. I gave the lowest output example, and easiest to do (as well as universally found). You can see that they stack the deck with their definitions and expectations. They will never agree that these fans are that efficient, nor will they mention a pulse motor that is highly efficient (even if they have one) because they will not want to admit any OU ever. That is the point here. No matter what you do, say, show and even prove (in the real world of course) they will always show their incredulousness.

My points were:
1. Simply to show that you take billions of these useful fans that are in countless computers and run them for less energy,
2. While charging another load also. You can call that a useful hack. But these guys will not give me any credit for that. They also try and say others who copied me did it first.

The debate is:
3. Whether we are just making the circuit more efficient with the reduced input while the mechanical (air flow) is maintained. And,
4. Whether the extra output gain is free energy over unity or just more efficiency.

Another point is
5. That all these manufacturers are not doing this, and that tells you that they didn't think it was possible or didn't want people to have more output. So it is a significant discovery that could immediately result in reducing energy costs around the world when you consider billions of fans. So Chet should start there with implementing the gains that could be done like this.
6. It also may indicate that such modifications are suppressed because they don't want people to consider OU systems. This opens a door they don't want opened, and neither do these guys here.

Now people can debate about point three all they want but it is a real gain over the normal circuit. So at least admit it. But point 4 proves the Loving Paths teaching. That was the whole point of showing this. It is not an ideal example of course, but that is why I started with this basic introduction. The flyback phenomena is completely characteristic of the path which depends on topology as Barrett wrote. These guys will never admit such things because they just want to oversimplify electronics with basic vector math and symmetry relationships. They are not willing to look at real world experiences. They will always assume that a resistive element in a circuit will have the same energy effects as an inductive or capacitive element. But the whole point Tesla made as shown by Barrett, was you have an entirely different electrical experiences with nonlinear reactive systems when using inductive and capacitive elements and loads over resistive. These guys cannot understand that because they only think in terms of linear resistive systems.

For example, they will boil everything down to a single loop steady state experience that is predictable with Kirchhoff's loop rule. They don't want secondary reactive loops as the Loving Paths show. Therefore, everything in that simplistic loop comes from the input. Naturally the assume that has to be the case no mater what else you add. It can only be more of the same. But, have they considered:

7. The total environmental effect of a circuit with a pulsed inductance? No, because they only look at the parts from a conventional perspective and the loads as originally intended.

8. The total environmental effect with changing environments. No, because they assume that the environment can have little or no impact upon these circuit parts. They want to think they are in a closed system here. At least they will admit (if you force them to) that external thermal changes and altitude may effect the output.
But this point is everything and is the basis of free energy systems. A solar panel is nothing without such changing environment. If you treated such a panel as they did these circuits then people would laugh at you. The solar circuit depends upon external environmental relationships that benefit the system. In the same way, the reactive loop with inductive and/or capacitive elements allows for additional environmental gains not experienced without them or with resistive shunting. They can't explain that so they just disbelieve it and just flat out deny it no matter what they see. 100 years ago they would say the same thing about solar panels. Because they can't measure the input energy they don't believe there can be any real gains.
Now it is true that their meters will show something because the meters will have minimal field interactions in that environment, but they will not be indicative of the total work produced by other loads because the meters are merely indicating what is happening to THEM and not the loads. In such cases the energy is coming directly from the ether or the source of all energy (whatever you wish to call it). It is the same place or source where the energy comes from when a dipole is produced in a battery or generator. Think about, mechanical and chemical processes do not create electricity. They may be an instrumental cause but the source of the energy is the ether in all cases. That is what all physics will show when you keep asking the questions. So in this case we are dealing directly with the source charge. The inductor becomes a source gate to the ether, and the output is completely dependent upon the environmental elements suitably connected or placed. If you place a tiny capacitor there you will get very little benefit. If you had a battery there you will get much more. If you add a massive battery bank there you will get massive results. This is a nonlinear experience. And the triggering factors also effect the amount of gain experienced. So the rate of change, impedance matching, and resonance in the primary side and reactive and load side greatly affect this nonlinear system's COP. This nonlinear change is verified in the fact that the motor runs just the same while the load is added and changed with different gains experienced according to different loads. It proves what Barrett wrote about Tesla' shuttle circuits. Of course Barrett already proved that with many well-known examples going back 70 years now. But this is much easier to see, and that is why I started to show this 14 years ago to over 100,000 people on campuses all across the USA. It is not ideal, as the rate of change and basic circuitry is not as good as the one I usually work with. But it shows the points.

As for Void and these others, all they can say is that they claim they have not seen such and such. This is classic agnosticism. Just because they have not experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is like a white child growing up around white people assuming that only white people exist. The problem is that we need to be more open, especially at considering nonlinear science. This is why I ask these guys the fundamental questions. They refuse to admit their assumptions and foundational electromagnetism theory because it will turn out like G that they do not believe OU is possible. They assume only linear systems exist. They actually need to prove and justify their assumptions. They cannot argue from ignorance, which is what they are doing essentially. That is why all they do is attack constantly. By attacking a position they hope to prove their argument from ignorance. Anytime an important point is made they go berserk with fallacies and personal attacks because they have zero foundation and will reveal zero foundational theory of their own. They only want to destroy others and don't want to expose their own foundation, or lack thereof.

As for the argument made here about swapping batteries back and forth and eventually running down, that completely diverts from the point at hand and misleads everyone (as they always do). No one was ever saying that this particular setup was a perpetual battery rotating setup (as many others are). Like you said, if you can get some extra energy and runtime then that is free energy you didn't have before. But void demands that OU be defined as self-running so he tries to change the meaning of words. Then he severely attacks me for saying otherwise. He fills pages with this false definition and personally attacks for me differing. Such immature behavior does no one any good.

Void and others say they find "that the energy is coming from the source battery driving the pulse circuit." But they never justify that claim. Only I have to justify my claims, as indeed I have. But they never feel the need to prove their own claims. And then they insult me at the same time for insisting upon them telling us why. The truth is they just assume this. They didn't find this to be the case. They have just mixed up instrumental causes with efficient source causes because they don't know basic philosophy. The input battery or power supply is only a trigger to make this additional effect happen. It is also just an instrument and is not the ultimate source of the electrical energy. This is basic physics. Just because Void doesn't understand these things doesn't mean his words have any meaning.

As for rotating batteries around, thousands of people have done that over the years. I did it with public demonstrations with fans, boats, generators. Chet recommended a Lab and it turns out that they did that a least 1.5 months with 2000W loads. Like I said, this is all old news. The debate is not about whether this is possible but about doing this without motors and batteries.

You can see in Void's next sentence where he assumes again that in order for their to be OU you have to have continuous battery rotation. But that is just him trying to change the meanings of words. Just because he wants self-running doesn't mean that OU = self-running. While self-running is OU, OU is not self-running. Void doesn't use correct language just as he didn't use proper working meters.

His next paragraph he claims that it is merely an assumption while not showing why it is. He is not willing to reveal or justify his claim, which is just a baseless assumption. And that is the extent of all the hype from these guys here: their views are true because they say so. Like I wrote, then while all the hatred for me if it is just a word-game like this? What point is actually made by that paragraph? None actually. The point is to make another assumption without ever revealing his actual theory or any justification for it. A is true because A is true. The energy comes from the input because it comes from the input. Wow, super intelligent reasoning here. But why is that so? Merely repeating baseless tautologies is a waste of time.

As for metering, this is what has been done. Airflow metering and power metering over time. And the main point is that the additional loop is nonlinear. That is, as the load changes the amount of work being done changes while the input energy from the primary battery decreases and the mechanical work stays the same. I think everyone admits this so it proves my points perfectly: The Loving Path reveals a nonlinear load output according to the topology and size of the load, etc. This is the basis for free energy. The amount of solar panels will determine how much loading you can get from the sun.

The output from the fan is not all the possible output either. When we consider the EMP coil teaching I have shown over the years we can get additional gains. Furthermore, if we add additional reactive loops we can get even more. Once we open this door we can see what Tesla was up to and the sky is not the limit!

Void wrote:
"Quote from: Void on August 06, 2019, 04:24:43 PM
Hi baudirenergie. The issue is whether these type of setups might be 'OU' or not, however. 
Energy in inductive switching spikes which normally may be dissipated in windings in the fan
or in other components in the fan such as diodes, can be redirected to pulse a secondary battery, but this still in no way in itself necessarily indicates anything about OU. I have experimented quite a bit with using inductive switching spikes in pulse circuits to pulse secondary batteries and unfortunately, no OU. In all my experiments I have found that the energy is coming from the source battery driving the pulse circuit. Even if you are swapping the batteries back and forth, the batteries start to run down if you leave it all running long enough.
If there are special exceptions to this where such an arrangement shows possible indications of actually being OU, I have not ever seen a convincing demonstration of it anyway.

This is the point which some people here have been trying to get across here.
It is an incorrect assumption to think that because you can direct energy from inductive switching spikes, or similar, to charge a secondary battery or batteries, that this somehow indicates 'OU'.
Such an arrangement actually in no way necessarily at all indicates OU.

Only by doing a proper comparison of average output power to average input power, or by self-looping such a setup in some way and leaving the self-looped setup running for a suitably long enough time, can you understand what the real performance of a given setup is in regards to efficiency. If using a battery to power a self-looped setup, then the suitable run time needed to determine if the circuit might be OU or not depends on the current draw from the battery in comparison to the battery's Amp-hour rating.

If some people are not understanding and acknowledging the above points, which should all be givens at overunity.com, then they are only demonstrating that they don't really understand what they are doing.  Sorry, but there is no nicer way to say it. That is just the plain reality of the situation."

Stefan wrote:
Sure these motors have some ohmical losses, they are only 95 to 97 % efficient in their best building types...
But let´s just use an example:Take a 12 Volts 7 Amphour battery that is fully charged and then contains 84 Watthours of energy.
Now power one of the Fanmotors from Rick.
My friend has the same  and they draw about 0.37 Amps in the normal mode unmodified.
that is about 4.44 Watts.Now if you run this on the 84 Wh battery this would give you about 19 hours run time.
Now when he had modified the motor as Rick did with removing the snubber diodes and using fast diodesto redirect the BackEMF pulses to a second 12 Battery, which was charged this way, the motor drew only then 0.35 to 0.36 amps and had the same torque,measured via a airflow meter.
So now do you agree if the motor now runs longer than 19 hours and also a few hours on the earlier empty second battery which was charged up and then will also run the same
motor also for another  few hours ?
So what do you call this now ?  OU or hyperefficient ?

[rickfriedrich]

Brad,
You have just proved my point that you foolishly denied your last few posts:
That you can't prove claims over the Internet. What is the meaning of Hearsay:
"information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate"
Well that is what all these forums are about. Until you do these things yourself you cannot substantiate any claim. And just because you personal do does not mean that translates over to others. It applies to everyone. You readily accept this here with the owner of a big company that sells millions of fans, but you then deny it with anti-OU claims where you gladly accept hearsay. You can't have it both ways. I already told you I didn't buy it from the owner, I bought it from Digikey.

But the efficiency of the motor is not the issue. You insist it is, but it isn't. You fail to understand what is claimed and you refuse to share why you believe what you do. You will not open yourself up for verification because you only want to attack and try and prove by a negative.

Let's apply your own words to yourself:
"claiming [ANTI-] OU is very easy,but actually being able to present the required data to back up those claim's seems out of [BRAD'S] reach."

No one forces anyone to do anything here Brad. You are spending time here because you know it is true and you are desperate to silence it. If all this was just silly then you would just give it a passing notice. But we have 156,000 views now (most of which happened) in two months and this shows how important this truth is.

My information has been given tens of thousands of times over the last 15 years. You guys say you don't even read what I write so it is your fault if you do that.

No, you don't start half-way into the debate. You start with the foundations and you justify each point. What is the electromagnetic theory? What is possible and what is not? Why? You can't just assume these things and then insist upon them, and then attack people for not doing the same. That is what you do Brad.

You don't understand how to do experiments Brad. This was simply a comparison experiment. You are always diverting from the point to insist upon something else that is unrelated. I just changed one variable because that was a true controlled experiment that everyone could do very easily. You will do your ignoration elenchi diversions. The point is not about the actual efficiency of the fan, but about showing how it can easily be showing extra gains. But in the end, all of this on this forum is just hearsay and one has to do all these things for themselves.

The little meter doesn't give you inaccurate readings at all. And the point is, that it gave the same readings on both fans. It is not about the total CFMs but about the same position showing the same air flow. Or you can do the same rpm when you have the same fan in the same room with no additional air flow in the room, etc. Do you not understand the differences here? I know you do and this proves to everyone how desperate you are to try and divert from the facts here.

So your last paragraph shows my point exactly. This is what I usually have done over the years. It really doesn't matter. You disregard the meter because you are trying to make yourself superior to others. And this is disgusting Brad. Especially when you blunder so much.

There is no doubt that !some! motors can be made more efficient with some simple modifications.
The question is-->how efficient was it in the first place?
Herein lies the problem Stefan--we just cant seem to get any base line efficiency numbers from Rick(or anyone) as to the actual efficiency of those fan motors.
We have heard Rick say that the guy i got them off said they are around 94% efficient,but that is nothing more than hearsay.
claiming OU is very easy,but actually being able to present the required data to back up those claim's seems out of Rick's reach. This is data that is critical toward our research into OU.
No one enjoys having there time wasted,and as you know,a lot of us here have spent a lot of our time and own money replicating claimed OU devices. The difference most time's is we have a clear schematic or diagram to go by,but in Rick's case,information is very scarce.
So,i would start out first getting actual efficiency measurements of the fans in question.
To do this,you will have to calculate differential pressures on each side of the fan,and know the actual flow rate of the fan at a set RPM. This can be calculated if the blades size and pitch on the fan is known,along with the RPM. This will then give you an accurate CFM figure. Once that is obtained,then you will need the differential pressure across the fan. These values can then be used to calculate the energy required to move that volume of air at that pressure. Waving one of those little plastic CFM meters around like Rick dose will give you a very inaccurate reading,and will not give you the differential pressure needed to make the calculations.
The simplest way at this point in time is to measure RPM to P/in in standard mode,and then again in modified mode. Stick with the RMP per mW value's,and leave those cheap air flow meters out of it,as they will give you all sorts of readings depending on as to how you hold them in the stream of air.
Brad

[gotoluc]

These guys will never admit to anything being OU unless it is self-running, which means one would have to have 2 times the work done than normal (depending on how you define efficiency, COP, etc.).

Sorry Rick but that is incorrect!... you do not need twice the output to self loop a device.
All you need is isolation between input and output and the output power only needs to be 1% over the input power.
If those conditions can be continuously maintained (no fluctuations) then that is enough to sustain self loop conditions.

If you don't believe me just say so and I will prove you wrong and show you how it's done. I will even demonstrate it without any doubt in a way you say it is not possible by making a video demo on the internet.

You have had advice from the best of real Experimenters that I know of, like Tinsel Koala, Itsu, Guyla, Partzman, TinMan, CITFTA and you still keep repeating unsupported claims we have all heard of and tested in the past from the supposable knowers of the secrets which you can buy from guys like Aaron just to find in the end they really have nothing.

So if you want to validate your argument stop arguing and put out the proof just like I'm willing to do to prove you wrong about needing twice the output power to self loop.
However, know this is a two way exchange, so if you're dead set on never providing any proof to your claims then it's clear you have nothing like Aaron and have lost this ridiculously long for nothing argument.
So if Rick is not willing to work in a two way exchange, then I ask all researchers to stop wasting time in this topic unless you have real proof to share and not just words.

Regards
Luc