Bifilar pancake coil overunity experiment

[ayeaye]

Non sequitur. I know that and I agree. The device is only needed to prove that the "natural phenomenon" allegedly found, is really OU.

Sequitur. The device is not needed to prove OU. Furthermore, a device may prevent the proof, as what is proven is not that which needs to be proven.

If one wants examples. The Bedini SG battery charger. Device yes, one battery can charge two batteries to their nominal voltage, yes. Like all one needs for overunity, right? But is it overunity? No. And how so, because again what is proven is not that which needs to be proven, what is measured is not that which needs to be measured for OU. As if one measures, one may find, the coil provides no overunity. The batteries are normal and provide no overunity either. Nothing in the device provides overunity, if overunity is that which we measure. Then how comes that it works. These are these sharp edges on the pulses, which they say give the "kick". What they really do, such sharp pulses create surface charge when charging a battery. Surface charge is when the battery is charged only near the electrode, and this happens when charging with short narrow pulses, the charge just cannot go further. Now what would be necessary to show the energy balance of the batteries, is not only charge, but also discharge them, measuring the output. That is always omitted in the Bedini experiments, because again, they measure the device, not anything else. And doing so completely excludes proving the overunity.

[F6FLT]

It is clear that our intellectual requirement for proof is not at the same level neither of same nature. I'm really very demanding.

[ayeaye]

It is clear that our intellectual requirement for proof is not at the same level neither of same nature. I'm really very demanding.

Read the above, i'm much more denanding than most.

[F6FLT]

...
If one wants examples. The Bedini SG battery charger. Device yes, one battery can charge two batteries to their nominal voltage, yes. Like all one needs for overunity, right? But is it overunity? No. And how so, because again what is proven is not that which needs to be proven, what is measured is not that which needs to be measured for OU.

non sequitur.
OU is for energy. A looped device must confirm the extra energy. There is no looped device with Bedini. A looped device must last long enough to produce more energy than it contained at the beginning. I'm sorry I didn't emphasize this obvious truism.

And don't forget either the purpose of this forum:
"Free energy will help heal the planet Earth.
In our discussion forum www.overunity.com, we talk about all kinds of free energy and alternative and renewable energy systems."

The ultimate goal is to build a device, not just to invoke a principle or a measurement by saying it is OU. Because we already have hundreds of such useless statements. That's why a sustainable device is required as proof.

[ayeaye]

OU is for energy. A looped device must confirm the extra energy. There is no looped device with Bedini. A looped device must last long enough to produce more energy than it contained at the beginning. I'm sorry I didn't emphasize this obvious truism.

It is a looped device. The battery charged can be used to power device and charge yet another battery, and endlessly so. A perfectly looped device, right?

The ultimate goal is to build a device, not just to invoke a principle or a measurement by saying it is OU. Because we already have hundreds of such useless statements. That's why a sustainable device is required as proof.

Not sequitur. We don't have not a single measurement that proves OU. Or do you know one, maybe you can say. So what is the problem? There is no need and there can never be a need to go away from the conventional methods of research.