|
In the interests of fair discussion here is Rick's rely to those wedded to Kirchhoff's laws.
Hi G, I guess you didn't read my main point: There is no reason for anyone to believe anyone's testimony on this or any forum. Why do you think I was trying to convince you? Now I can easily convince you on the non-testimony points whether you verbally admit that or not. But I would think anyone to be credulous to believe a mere statement even if I had pictures. Believing with supporting video may be a little less credulous, but it still is.
Now if we look carefully at your position in these matters with your insistence about measuring LEDs, and your questions to me in that respect, we find that you now show your skepticism bent. Notice I answered your point in that measurement is 0.5W each (it is sometimes 3W when I put the ferrite coil in the transmitter, which also brings down the input to 0.5W) with larger LEDs. There were 15 total as I had 4 smaller coils with larger bulbs as well (one under the table and 4 at the top at one point--10 big coils, 4 smaller, and 1 on a ferrite rod). There were 75 small coils with LEDs totaling over 2W. So we have at least 8W of measured power with 0.75W or less input. All 18 people at the meeting could see that I could continue to add more and more coils with loads which only brought the input down. So now you are stuck here in your skepticism because I have explained what I have done in the pictures and you have decided to tell everyone that you refuse to believe this testimony that complies with your conditions of belief. The fact is that with skeptics like you no matter what you tell me or anyone to do you will always choose to disbelieve a claim.
Now I am saying that NO ONE should believe any claim or picture or video posted on this or any Forum. No one should believe anything without sufficient reason. You would be gullible to do so. However, I find you contradict yourself in that you APPEAR to propose to me the idea that you WOULD BE convinced of my statement that there was OU in the setup if I measured the bulbs and found them to total more than the input. I did just that and you respond that you "are not yet convinced" this "gives an overall extra output". I complied with your requests (measurements) and your response is blanket disbelief with no reasons given other than "sorry" (what is sorry but an emotional reason). I find that fascinating. What I am doing here is exposing the fundamental mistakes people are making here on the forums. People like you are sharing your disbelief of claims with the impression that if sufficient testing is revealed through (what???) pictures, video, and testimony with acceptable metering that you may be convinced. Is that not fair to say? Are you not telling everyone that you may be convinced of something here on this forum like that? Or is this all just word games with people?
My question is more fundamental: Why do you give the impression to anyone like me that you could be convinced of any OU claim if these kinds of conditions would be met? That sounds like a game to me. That also sounds credulous. Why would you believe any claim when no amount of pictures, videos, or testimony ought to be believed through an online forum when only real and live witnessing/experience can produce rational conviction. So you see I am not expecting you or anyone to believe my story even though you all think that I am doing that. (I merely offer it up as possible as I know my setup was a focus here, and at least one customer may especially benefit from the details).
Again, my points are:
1. No one should believe any testimony in the form of words, pictures, or videos coming from an online forum because such cannot be conclusively proven to be real. This is hard to accept but it is true.
2. You imply that that is not correct or reasonable. You suggest that if I provide something to this effect that you would believe the claim.
3. Once your conditions were fulfilled you still refused to believe a claim with the appearance of that being a mere refusal rather than for the reason of there being a non-fulfillment of your conditions.
So these are the games everyone is playing on these forums. You are all being too vague about what you are trying to accomplish by all this. Notice the title of this thread: Confirmation of OU devices and claims. Do you suppose there can be actual confirmation of such by one additional testimony? How about two? How many people would it take? What level or what kind of testimony is enough for others to have enough confirmation for it to be reasonable to believe something? You see there is never enough testimony for anyone to do that in this circumstance. You can only confirm for yourself. So the games going on here are merely evidence of credulity and incredulity.
Now it is perfectly fine to offer up schematics and show people what they can try for themselves. If that was the only suggestion that would be fine. But that is not only what is going on here. Most people assuming that sufficient evidences can be presented through pictures, video and words to convince themselves of claims, while certain others like you suggest the same but will never actually be convinced even if people fulfill your conditions. So this ends up being a needless tension game as one person has revealed to me.
You misunderstand me again in that I am not a salesman in what I said. I am not saying that people have to buy parts from me. I am just saying that I have zero ability to judge another persons work while not being there. Even with my own parts it is very hard to ensure people are doing things right. I have many years of experience with many people doing these kinds of experiments or otherwise electrical testing where I have spent hours with them over the phone troubleshooting. Just last week will be an example. I had customers bring in their setups of my systems. After talking with them for hours (and in some cases looking at their pictures and videos) I still did not discover mistakes made because of assumptions. When they brought in the setups (now in the real world) I then was able to carefully look them over to see some mistakes that more or less affected functionality. So I don't say these things without justification or many years of experience in technical troubleshooting and being owner and moderator of technology forums. I have done this fulltime for 15 years now.
To clarify my comments about finding mistakes in Itzu's setup. As he has done much more since when I examined his details I don't think it would be right to refer to my observations. It would be better for me to look at his latest work which I may not get the chance to do. My point in mentioning his mistakes is not to discredit his claims but to draw attention to the problem of the fundamentally wrong assumptions of these forums, and specifically in this case that you cannot confirm or disprove a claim of another, especially by changing the details (in this case the parts). And deeper than this, that the claim or counter-claim should not be believed anyway in this place. But if I did assume that a counter-claim should be believed with sufficient enough pictures and detailed testimony from Itzu, then I at least bring up the point that how do I know that he properly made his parts? If the parts are not the same how could that be a properly controlled experiment? How can I tell it is free from fakery? How can I tell he is able to properly measure or conduct the experiments? I recall him having significant differences and also assuming various errors. And because I have a lot of experience in trying to help people who are not in my presence I realized that it would be a fruitless effort to try and correct the matter. My point is not that you cannot make for yourself a resonance induction coupler system as many have done. But that you cannot evaluate a claim of another person or a kit without having the actual parts and understanding how to use them. Is that not reasonable???
Now I am not suggesting that the ideas presented in my kit have to be precisely made in a certain way. On the contrary, these processes have been used billions of times over the last 130 years. But someone's failure to understand how to make it work should not persuade anyone of anything, neither someone claiming that they have confirmed it. For are we basing our beliefs on popularity? Are there not stricter rules for producing rational conviction? This is the next step. This needs to be settled first. This is the first point in any forums otherwise we have this mass confusion that leads to what we find throughout the free energy community (and indeed throughout modern culture). And as part of that you need to come clean with everyone exactly what you are doing here in this respect. Again, you implied that claims could be believed through this medium but then when your conditions are met you refuse to believe and merely say sorry as your justification. You need to tell everyone that you will never have sufficient reasons to believe a claim on such forums (and that would be a good thing to do for the reasons I gave) or if you say otherwise you need to say exactly what conditions are sufficient. But if you are set to always disbelieve a claim, even when your conditions are met, then you merely play games with people as countless skeptics have done. So you need to explain yourself here.
You can see here that unless we start upon a solid foundation then our speculations will be just random and meaningless. All claims and information on forums are merely helpful to the individual to confirm matters for themselves. It is merely to give ideas to try. It cannot ever prove or disprove anything. Now I have suggested many things in my long posting that people can verify or disprove to themselves. And I have given many kits for people to play around with as a means for self-verification. This forum has hundreds of suggestions of the same nature. My focus has shifted away from a focus on specific parts (and hoping for magical results) to themes (where you understand key processes and then can make any parts dance for you). Again, it is important experimentally understand by experience resonance and related ideas. But even before that, unless the bias principle is forsaken, no matter what you do you will fail in this and any matter of investigation. And unless you can overcome the bias of mainstream restrictions (which is like seeing everything with 2 dimensional lenses rather than 3D) you will fail. You will not look where you do not expect to see. You will disbelieve even what you see if you are not willing to see it. And you will refuse to admit even what you know to be true. These are the foundations which you cannot bypass. All bypass is merely a foolish game wasting everyone's time.
On your end if you can somehow prove the vaguely implied claim that resonance is merely a transformer or accumulating process and that there cannot possibly be an environmental gain, then you will prove most of the chatter on this forum to be foolishness (as indeed many believe). Obviously those who are hoping to see OU or something beneficial in my setup have to believe otherwise, that resonance is a gain in some way. So this is a starting point. Which is it? Can it be proven that resonance is not a gain, that it is merely a distribution of volts and amps over time? If so, then what you go into this with is what you will come out with. And when you play the piano it will be with all dampers locked onto strings (and added dampers on the high strings that don't normally have them) so that even when you strike a key the damper will not lift. Oh, and you remove the soundboard and the environment itself! Welcome to the one dimensional world of mainstream college level electronics. But don't fool yourself or anyone into thinking that someone's failure to produce some result somehow can establish that resonance is not a gain for anyone else (especially through the means of an online forum).
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). So as some textbooks would imply without prejudice, the Q at a given frequency will determine your gain IF YOU LET IT DO THAT FOR YOU AND DON"T KILL IT WITH MAINSTREAM CIRCUITRY THAT DESTROYS THE PROCESS. So it can be seen here that what you go into this will be what you get out. If you expect this to be merely a transformer process then the word resonance and words like gain, are deceptions and meaningless. It would be better to say high point or tuned point. Again, the pianist playing the piano is merely science fiction as the piano cannot do such things that produce an excess of energy or that are non-conservative.
To create the proper organization for this study of experience surrounding my kit, which assume resonance is a gain, you need to settle these points FIRST. If you do not believe resonance is a gain then you need to state that is where you are coming from so that we can see that your goal is not to benefit from the research presented here but to merely try and show how mistaken people are in these matters. I suggest people start at the beginning rather than play the games that most play. Failure to do that has only resulted in all the uncertainty people on both sides live with. This is true in all other areas of life.
Now, the secondary point after the foundation has been developed and adhered to is addressing all the dampers mainstream practice puts on the piano to kill the resonance gains with specific limited and resistance loads so that they assume there is but a single body circuit, and Kirchhoff is a universal law, and gains in local environment are NOT to be considered. They take away the fullness of life and want us to believe in only the fundamental key, and urge us to ignore the affects in the real world. They will impulse a motor to create (magnetic) motor action and ignore the other half of the energy in the negative spike that could charge a battery as I have done for years. They will magnetically impulse an inductor to create electrical generation but ignore the magnetic energy produced by the inductor (and call that merely a reflection of the transmitter). They will ring a bell with a rubber band around the bell so that you only consider one dampened strike. They will load the transmitter so that it is out of resonance. They (MIT 2007) will judge the efficiency of resonance induction coupling by placing only one receiver coil in a small percentage of the transmitter's radiation and act like that represents a full transfer of energy when many more equal loads could be added all around the transmitter to show more energy production than what was input. This is my point in my pictures (and I have exposed this in my book). Again, if you assume there can only be one receiver coil then you limit the output by the percentage of the field you place the coil in, and by the square of the distance away from it. But if you are honest you will see that if you are only taking a small percentage of the output then you will consider it just that. In my pictures I am only taking a small percentage of the radiations, and yet I am not even cancelling out the radiations of the transmitter beyond the coils that are being influenced by such radiations passing beyond them. It's more complicated than that as you can directly capacitively couple to receiver coils as well.
The showing of the two pictures was merely a kind of follow up of what Don Smith envisioned with his first model with 4 extra coils off the transmitter where he said you could fill a room and duplicate the energy. The point is easily proven by anyone who is not afraid to try. This is not an attempt to prove to others but rather for encouragement for people to try it. But the naysayers lie to the public in presenting in such a way as to imply that only one receiver coil can benefit as if the total energy actually flows from one transmitter into the receiver coil when that is completely false.
Of course there will be no response to these critical and fundamental points I have addressed by those who want to continue playing the games on these forums. I say all this to demystify these games for those who have ears to here. Don't believe the diversions. And don't believe any claim for or against. Only believe that which has been sufficiently established to yourself. And only proceed after you establish a proper foundation (which is evident most people are lacking as observed by what is stated and assumed).
You don't need my parts to consider any of these things. I just made an AM transmitter coil with decent Q over 100 and focused on a medium frequency of 1.25MHz with 100pf standard cap (with low Q for safety). That works well for these experiments. You can see I made two larger coils that had the same inductance so that the same frequency and capacitance could be used (the 10 coils were slightly off however). These had higher Q and resulted in greater gains (I don't expect you to believe this). The kit, and these bigger coils, are not in a 1/4 wavelength relationship, so I did not make this kit all that it could be. Ideally there is one secondary closely coupled (but still loosely) to the transmitter so that all the flux passes through it before continuing on THROUGH external receiver coils as shown in the picture (which could represent powering the small input power like Don Smith's input wires from the battery that were a wavelength of the primary). That secondary in a quarter wave length, not considering the other receiver coils, would be influenced to experience the full extent of the primary fluxing in each turn of its windings so that when loaded you could more fully appreciate the gains produced by the primary resonance amplification of energy. But to claim to be estimating the transmitting energy gains by a distant receiver coil's output (that is only influenced by a small percentage of radiation) is misleading (as in the case of the MIT demonstration). So my demo was only to show more coils with a 360 rotation (still only a small angle of the total radiation). But this was also to show the relay effect (relay coils that were also loaded) indicating that the receiver coils now become transmitters (and thus the process can start all over again, and even power the initial transmitter when properly phased/placed). G, it doesn't take a whole lot of time for you to play around with this and drop the input power down to zero or almost zero. It's up to you to convince yourself. You ought not to be convinced by any of my pictures, videos, or words. Don't pretend that you should be and that I haven't provided enough evidence. There is no such things as evidence through online forums. No such thing. People, realize that just because someone says they disbelieve something it doesn't mean they are telling the truth to you, or even to themselves. Many skeptics do believe but are afraid to admit the truth. Many more are merely trying to draw out more information from you so that you can work for them for free as they actually are developing this technology. Of course there are also those who monitor people as well. These things are a lot more sophisticated than you would think. I have seen this face to face over the years.
---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?
|
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Author
Topic: Things just got interesting (Read 7407 times)
