Concepts and principles of OU devices.

[Vidura]

The devices shown in the Patrick Kelly videos have nothing to do with "electrostatic induction "
High frequencies, no electrostatics.
On the other forum someone posted this publication:
Interesting from IEEE:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9295367
Regards Vidura.

[Grumpy]

Later video of a Solovey replication:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv1rLk1Fq_8

Does anyone have the PDF's of these two videos?

After much searching, the contents of the 2 Solovey-related pdf's has been located: see attached

Very interesting...

[Vidura]

from NickZ: I am not really into repeating myself, so you can check my videos, or posts, for my comments and ideas, here as else where.
  I am into building a working device, and theory will follow. Sorry. I already understand the working theory, but, understanding a theory is not the same as producing a working self running device. I am not interested in hearing about more and more theories, that do nothing...except in your imagination.

If you're not interested in theory, nor in my opinion, then you are in the wrong topic, sorry for you.

[Grumpy]

If you're not interested in theory, nor in my opinion, then you are in the wrong topic, sorry for you.

We have to start somewhere: either instructions for a working device, or a theory to develop your own version of a working device.

Unfortunately, both are sorely lacking...

[Vidura]

We have to start somewhere: either instructions for a working device, or a theory to develop your own version of a working device.

Unfortunately, both are sorely lacking...

Are you sure of that? How many has tried to make something out of all this popular predigested stuff and unfounded "theories" ?
Certainly you can continue to do that. But maybe it is even better to do reverse engineering, at least with a good portion of luck you could find something. I have proposed  a hypothesis as fundamentals to go a different way.First think,  verify the idea, and then design and  build knowing what you are looking for. If you have doubts about something, you can ask, we can discuss it.
Regards Vidura

[NickZ]

If you're not interested in theory, nor in my opinion, then you are in the wrong topic, sorry for you.

  Yes, Vidura you are right. And I share your "opinion", but, what I'm interested in are your results, but you are not into building an actual working contraption that self runs, and would prove your point.  Well, the proof is in the pudding...
  At one time we had working group, but most everyone bailed... As this is not an easy build.
Now we have "theories". And there are a lot of them, but, not a single working self runner. Which is what I am interested in.

   NickZ

[Grumpy]

OK, looking at the Solovey documents that I posted above, what is the theory of operation?

Can the designs in these documents be improved or simplified?

Based on these questions, can we build a suitable device to provide conventional power (AC or DC) to useful devices in excess of the supplied power?

[Allcanadian]

Vidura

Certainly you can continue to do that. But maybe it is even better to do reverse engineering, at least with a good portion of luck you could find something. I have proposed  a hypothesis as fundamentals to go a different way.First think, verify the idea, and then design and build knowing what you are looking for. If you have doubts about something, you can ask, we can discuss it.

Indeed and after reading your posts on the first page I think your on the right track conceptually.

As you implied, many trying to replicate FE devices generally always fail because they have no knowledge of the mechanism for gain. In effect, there trying to understand an airplane without first understanding aerodynamics, what a wing is and how it works. It's a backwards way of doing things which seldom yields any demonstrable results.

We also have the problem that the people most likely to succeed who are discussing real concepts are usually drowned out by others. Either the replicators and/or the supposed science critics jump in confusing the issue until it's destroyed. As this always seems to happen one has to wonder if it's accidental or premeditated to cast doubt and muddy the waters.

First think, verify the idea, and then design and build knowing what you are looking for.

Here you nailed it and this is the exact process I always use. It always starts with...
1)an idea.
2)which leads to a concept.
3)which leads to an experiment to verify the concept.
4)which leads to a process/device built around the basic concept to demonstrate a result.

AC

[Aking.21]

OK, looking at the Solovey documents that I posted above, what is the theory of operation?

Can the designs in these documents be improved or simplified?

Based on these questions, can we build a suitable device to provide conventional power (AC or DC) to useful devices in excess of the supplied power?

The "magic" happens when you introduce a capacitor.
I have already done  experiments with conditioned ou caps.
Dave Lawton did the same with his Meyer HHO replication.
So here is a question.
Take a crystal set and instead of an earth ground, introduce a capacitor instead of the earth ground, then ground the cap.
A capacitor is a blocking device.
What happens to the crystal set?

[Grumpy]

The "magic" happens when you introduce a capacitor.
I have already done  experiments with conditioned ou caps.
Dave Lawton did the same with his Meyer HHO replication.
So here is a question.
Take a crystal set and instead of an earth ground, introduce a capacitor instead of the earth ground, then ground the cap.
A capacitor is a blocking device.
What happens to the crystal set?

I answered before but it looks like it was deleted...

The logical answer is that they crystal set stops working because of the blocking capacitor.

The guessing answer is that crystal set works better.

[F6FLT]

...
As you implied, many trying to replicate FE devices generally always fail because they have no knowledge of the mechanism for gain. In effect, there trying to understand an airplane without first understanding aerodynamics, what a wing is and how it works.
...

You don't need to know the mechanism of the wings if you just reproduce a plan.

A "knowledge" is only necessary within the framework of a theory, and a theory is only necessary to explain facts. Producing facts does not require knowledge of the theory.
Ørsted did not need to know electromagnetism to deflect a compass needle with a current. All researchers of his time, without knowledge, could then reproduce the effect. New facts precede knowledge, knowledge explains them, and only then can engineering use the knowledge.

You are thinking backwards, illogically, it is an ignorance of the most elementary scientific method. To require the experimenters to know the principles in order to generate the facts is a nonsens and a need to excuse the irreproducibility of the so-called OU devices.  The problem is only that the plan is always badly described or it lacks elements or more likely, even reproducing it faithfully does not work because the original never worked as claimed (measurement error or scam).

[Vidura]

Hi All
Yes I have removed some posts and will continue to do that when I consider it unproductive or based on erroneous calculating and/or schemes (Don Smith). If you think to have a clear understanding of the effects and how they are implemented please describe it with your OWN WORDS, not repeating anyone else's opinions. Also I consider that a certain basis knowledge in physics and electronics is required to join the discussion of the theoretical topic.
@ Akin.21
A capacitor is not a "blocking device" 
Thanks for your understanding.
Vidura

[Grumpy]

OK, looking at the Solovey documents that I posted above, what is the theory of operation?
What is the principle of OU, if it exists in these devices?

[Hakasays]

You don't need to know the mechanism of the wings if you just reproduce a plan.

Much like how the swordsmiths of Damascus were working with carbon nanotubes and graphene centuries before the structures were officially discovered. They didn't need to know the *how*, just the process that made their swords insanely sharp

[Vidura]

OK, looking at the Solovey documents that I posted above, what is the theory of operation?
What is the principle of OU, if it exists in these devices?

I decline to comment on these documents, for some already mentioned reasons. Although I respect JPKelly as reporter, where he did a great job with his recompilation, IMO he did not have the background to give explanations related to physics theories. And Don Smith, already commented....
But we can take most of the other devices,claimed OU, and analyse them in context with the here proposed hypothesis.
Regards Vidura.

[Aking.21]

I answered before but it looks like it was deleted...

The logical answer is that they crystal set stops working because of the blocking capacitor.

The guessing answer is that crystal set works better.

The answer is that it makes no difference.
One possiblity is that the earth side of the cap replicates the working side through electrostatic induction, hence the amplification.
Anyhow, I have told you what I know, through experimentation.
The other factor is that whatever is happening on one side of the cap is perfectly replicated on the other side, and hence technically in perfect resonance.
Good luck with your research.

[Vidura]

OK, looking at the Solovey documents that I posted above, what is the theory of operation?
What is the principle of OU, if it exists in these devices?

Grumpy, as you insist with the Solovay, I did not know the actual experiment shown in the video, If you want we can try to analyse it in the scope of the here proposed hypothesis.
But please provide a complete schematic with all coils and what claims was made about the results.
Regards Vidura.

[Grumpy]

Grumpy, as you insist with the Solovay, I did not know the actual experiment shown in the video, If you want we can try to analyse it in the scope of the here proposed hypothesis.
But please provide a complete schematic with all coils and what claims was made about the results.
Regards Vidura.

The schematics and claims are in the PDF files.  I'm not convinced based on the conventional bulb being blown, as they are not designed for HV, HF.

However, it has not been proven to not be OU.

I'd like to try it with unidirectional pulses and longitudinal resonance.

[Thaelin]

Hi Grumpy:
    I have experimented with 125v bulbs and HV to see what does happen with them. There is a point where a plasma forms (purple haze) inside the bulb and it will arc across killing the illumination part.

[F6FLT]

...
However, it has not been proven to not be OU.
...

No device has to be proven not to be OU.

After much searching, the contents of the 2 Solovey-related pdf's has been located: see attached

Very interesting...

I don't think so.  In the first paper, I read :
"However, Don Smith states that when a circuit is at it's point of resonance, resistance in the circuit drops to zero and the circuit becomes effectively, a superconductor." 

This is obviously wrong. At resonance, the impedance of the circuit is reduced to the resistance. If the coil is superconducting and the capacitor too, then R=0. In the general case, notably that of the experiments described, they are not, so we have a resistance.
Resonance has nothing to do with superconductivity. It is a nonsense and everything else is on the same model.

Another example. Starting from P=U.I, he tells us: "so we might settle for the notion that if we doubled the voltage then we could double the output power."
Only he must have had this idea because he never studied anything. Competent people know that energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the physical quantity that gives it rise, such as a voltage, a current, an electric field, a magnetic field, a speed for kinetic energy...
This simply means that it takes twice as much energy to charge a capacitor at 20v than at 10v, this is well known and to pretend that we could defeat the conservation of energy on such a simplistic idea is childish.

Yet another example is the idea that the stored energy would depend on the frequency. In an RLC circuit the energy goes from the capacitor to the inductor via the resistance. It is always the same energy that goes back and forth. This energy is equal to 1/2.L.I² when the current is maximum in the inductance, or to 1/2.C.V² when the voltage is maximum in the capacitor, and it is partially dissipated in the resistance at each passage from one to the other, even at resonance, which is the reason for the attenuation of an RLC circuit when we stop feeding it, attenuation which is consequently faster when the frequency is higher.
The frequency has no role in the energy, it simply sets the number of back and forth per second of the stored energy between the capacitor and the inductor.

Donald Lee Smith twists electronics formulas to obtain false results that appeal to the naive but that even a beginning undergraduated student could debunk. He shows himself incapable of using the differential equations of physics to get the right results. He clearly does not understand anything he presents and makes incoherent galimatia out of it. By reading him, the ignorant will remain an ignorant, and the others may well become so. Solovey is supposed to be a "Ph.D. candidate". Did he get his degree?

[AlienGrey]

F6 where do you get your quotes from, coils and capacitors don't have resistance it's dynamic impedance and it's not a closed circuit ether none of your facts are right, I don't know why you bother..

it just shows that you don't have a clue and that post was written by some time wasting taking
negative thinking comedian. I bet you have never been to DLS seminars or seen one of his devices working.

Sil

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

I don't think so.  In the first paper, I read :
"However, Don Smith states that when a circuit is at it's point of resonance, resistance in the circuit drops to zero and the circuit becomes effectively, a superconductor."

It's debatable and would depend on the context of what were talking about.

If were dealing with Don Smiths high voltage/high frequency phenomena the corona/skin effect could be perceived as a lack of resistance. Even most amateur HV experimenters understand this and because the current is very low there is little resistance. A plasma has extremely low resistance and new studies with plasma waves show superconductive properties. 

As well, if resonance was involved in a mechanism for gain then the acceleration of free electrons could negate any resistance. When an acceleration equals any resistance there appears to be no resistance which some could assume is super conduction ie. a lack of resistance.

What you seem to have done is take the statement out of context assuming low voltage then made yet another slanderous straw man argument against forum rules.

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
It's debatable and would depend on the context of what were talking about.
...

It's not debatable. The conductors used in capacitors and inductors have a non-zero resistance.

[Vidura]

About Don Smith and the Solovay papers I would agree with F6 . As on paper anything can be written,and  it won't cry or protest so it remains there. It is worrying that so many people just swallow this kind of unfounded formulism and senseless blabbering without questioning or verifying it. The pity is that other more serious research is falling into notoriety.
Anyway, focussing on the subject of the thread again, it has to be noted very clearly, that of a resonant system can not be extracted more energy that the amount needed to support the resonance less losses. The only way this can happen, is when a continuous restorage from the environment is present. And this does not come from resonance alone, otherwise there would be millions of replications already. It is necessary to look for the mechanism how this inflow of energy happens.
@ Grumpy, if you could post  a screenshot of the schematic diagram, we could analyze in context of physics and radio engineering.
Vidura.

[Grumage]

Here's the full pdf file....

See attached screenshots.