Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)  (Read 338493 times)

triffid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4263
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #405 on: June 25, 2008, 01:11:48 PM »
test,just wanted a link back to this thread.triffid

BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #406 on: June 25, 2008, 02:30:23 PM »
Gentlemen,

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

For every Force there is an equal and resultant opposite summation of reactions or a single reaction by forces or a force.

1. I believe the author of the first was mistranslated.
2. He was thinking in 2D.

Edit-->>

@Paul

This sounds like I'm attempting to negate you thinking but I'm not.

Let E=Force, C=Action and M=Inertia. The result would equal Mass or Energy?

The other three vectors are still missing. You can't have action at a distance but why not force?
Every time I look at this I think the equation is only half complete until the result always = zero.

Enough rambling.... off to kiss butt for a paycheck again.....


« Last Edit: June 25, 2008, 03:33:10 PM by BEP »

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #407 on: June 25, 2008, 07:18:34 PM »
Force IS "action over distance". This is IMPLIED in physics. So, when particles collide, the fact of collision implies distance (from their virtual centers), because particles have non-zero size. If they were zero-sized, they would not collide. I think it's pretty safe to assume that spherical electrostatic field that surrounds electrons is the field that acts over distance, and force it puts on surrounding electrostatic fields depends on the momentary distance between centers of electrons. "Fusion" of electrons thus implies zero distance between electrons and requirement of infinite force applied -> thus impossible (unless, of course, electrostatic field of electrons is more complex).

On pauldude000's C, E, M graph, I think it's just a misleading graph. In my understanding there is no difference between "electric" (electrostatic) field and magnetic field (I gave some insights why before in some other posts). What every physicist seemingly forgetting is that ANY wave motion is performed in a complex plane thus having "real" and "imaginary" components. So, what is assumed to be a thing that differentiates electric and magnetic fields could simply be an existence of both real and imaginary components in wave. It's simply the same thing in quadrature: no need to extract "electric" and "magnetic" components in the flow of electrons. It's the same thing: a flow of electrons that have electrostatic fields. It's the reason Tesla could send TWO currents over the same wire in both directions: he probably simply knew mathematics and Fourier transform well, and built electronics that used real and imaginary parts of current independently. Even though, it may seem too mathematical, the truth is that this "wave" mathematics is fully supported by physical reality, so it's not someone's fantasy. Even radiowaves have inherent quadrature polarization.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2008, 08:04:11 PM by aleks »

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #408 on: June 26, 2008, 02:09:41 AM »
@loner, pese, & all

I have a possible oscillator I just designed, based upon a Hartley oscillator, with feedback for a two CC TPU I would like some input on.

Here is the schematic:

(http://www.geocities.com/pauldude000/paultpuosc.jpg)

Notes: I tried to design it to use the capacitance of the CC's themselves, using high capacitance bifiliar winding technique. C in the schematic represents this natural capacitance.

The two switches  (S1 and S2) allow the system to be initiated by battery, then battery disconnected, with a safety shutoff for the feedback power from the collector. (makes me feel better though the feedback switch is more for peace of mind than usability.)

The bridge rectifier is to be constructed out of 25ns high clamp speed/power glass diodes.

D1, D2, and D3 are to force manually controlled current flow in the circuit.

R is a yet to be determined resistor which limits voltage/current flow through the feedback.

C1 is to block an accidental DC emitter to base short.

CC1 & 2 are the control coils.

The feedback power is taken directly from the collector through the bridge to self power the circuit after battery is disconnected.

...................

Now, what have I missed or hooked up wrong? (This is design stage, and I have not built it yet.)

Paul Andrulis

 

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #409 on: June 26, 2008, 02:25:39 AM »
High self-capacitance will effectively prevent the "effect" from occuring.

What you need is high self-inductance and this is what Tesla got with his "extra coil".  Self-inductance is max and self-capacitance min when the length of the coil (single layer solenoid) equals the diameter.  You can find this in old radio books as well as Dollard's work.

BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #410 on: June 26, 2008, 05:03:59 AM »
Force IS "action over distance".

Excellent correction of my statement! Perhaps I should have used the word potential instead. So according to the classic definition of force it no longer exists when movement stops or the distance no longer changes?
Yes, I know there is 'another variation' of force definition (many others). The problem I have with it all is there is always 'another variation' on the definition.

In my understanding there is no difference between "electric" (electrostatic) field and magnetic field (I gave some insights why before in some other posts).

My understanding is still different. Perhaps flawed. So then momentum and the associated mass are one in the same? Bad analogy, I know.
Since one can exist without the other (electric/magnetic) and without movement how can they be one in the same. Hopelessly tied together, yes but the same? It is a binding factor that makes it all one as a system(IMO).

Learning never stops. I appreciate the lesson :)

Rather than clogg this good thread I'll look you up where those other posts reside asap.

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #411 on: June 26, 2008, 05:26:20 AM »
magnetic contains tempic and electric

electric contains tempic

just the way it works.

pese

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1597
    • Freie Energie und mehr ... Free energy and more ...
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #412 on: June 26, 2008, 10:06:15 AM »
@loner, pese, & all

I have a possible oscillator I just designed, based upon a Hartley oscillator, with feedback for a two CC TPU I would like some input on.
 
Paul Andrulis

 
Paul. the scematis are or.  it is not to show . that output coil , wiring to the diodebridge MUST be couplet in near of the oscillating coils.  Some mor help ... on mail.
Gustav Pese

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #413 on: June 26, 2008, 01:46:41 PM »
Excellent correction of my statement! Perhaps I should have used the word potential instead. So according to the classic definition of force it no longer exists when movement stops or the distance no longer changes?

The true understanding of "force" is flawed throughout the physics. Force is a transient when it acts, and is potential field when it exists. It's like a DC voltage change. It implies a lot of things "behind the scene". In my understanding when two bodies or potential fields collide or come close, they create a "third" field which I call a "transient potential", or space DC potential (DC acoustic wave). So, when we are talking about applied force in motion we should keep in mind that two bodies repel from each other on the impact due to a "transient potential" appearing. In the case of macro rubber bodies this potential is most obviously represented by potential force of deformation. In the case of electrons or atoms things become much more complex as I think it's pretty shaky to assume electron's field can also deform. In my opinion, upon collision of electrons a virtual "transient" particle is born, which forms a system with the nearby electrons. And this is where "the overunity" may be hidden assuming this "transient" particle is actually appearing out of nowhere - out of ether or whatever. Without such particle I find it hard to visualize electron kinetics. So, while this particle may work as a "repellant" of electrons during direct electron-electron impact, this particle may act upon all nearby matter and electrons if the velocity of impact is high. However, to gain energy out of this transient particle, a special energy flow arrangement (symmetry) should be used so that this transient particle mainly accelerates nearby particles. In average, this transient particle will both accelerate and decelerate nearby particles yielding no net energy gain. This virtual particle may appear as attracting (another sign) in cases when two electrons pass near each other without collision - this is what may be happening in "Casimir effect", not understood well to date (mainly described via quantum mechanics ZPF, and may have its flaws). I think if such attracting particle never appeared, electrons would accelerate each other beyond sanity.

On the "force being action over distance" notion, I should add that this does not contradict electrical and acoustical facts, because both electricity and acoustics are driven by kinetic statistics and so speed of forceful particle interactions is limited. Indeed, while an impact of two electrons is heard by all universe, this does not change potential fields at a distance much due to 1/x^2 potential field intensity law and so kinetic "short-distance" interactions prevail making long-distance interactions minor and basically insignificant. Beside that electrical flow is mainly carried by EM waves which have a limiting speed of propagation C.

My understanding is still different. Perhaps flawed. So then momentum and the associated mass are one in the same? Bad analogy, I know.
Since one can exist without the other (electric/magnetic) and without movement how can they be one in the same. Hopelessly tied together, yes but the same? It is a binding factor that makes it all one as a system(IMO).

In my opinion, "momentum" cannot exist with particles or bodies having no internal structure. So, "momentum" is inherently an "assymetry" of substructural arrangement. For example, if we assume electron to be composed of 3 smaller subparticles, the momentum of electron can be "stored" as an assymetry between these subparticles (3 should be enough to store both linear and angular momentum). In this case, when subparticles are perfectly symmetrical, we may say that electron has no momentum relative to similar symmetrical electrons: relative to other non-symmetrical electrons it will have momentum, of course.

Electric/magnetic is a quadrature of the changing density of "charge" - note that DC current's magnetic and electric field intensity changes together.

I myself can hardly grasp this concept, but there is no factual or mathematical contradiction, because when one makes a Fourier transform, each point of our 3D space can be represented as a complex number. So, it's pretty safe to assume that we live in a complex-numbered 3D space whose future state solely depends on its current state.

Learning never stops. I appreciate the lesson :)
Rather than clogg this good thread I'll look you up where those other posts reside asap.

Thanks for the discussion, and I'm not a teacher - just trying to find a common denominator for my own understanding.

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #414 on: June 26, 2008, 06:19:45 PM »
@all

A note about using a diode bridge to recitify high frequency. I told Pese I would point this out to everyone.

For a bridge rectifier to work, it must be able to clamp the signals at speeds in ns FASTER than the frequency wave reversal time. Otherwise, it will not rectify anything. For instance, a 25ns clamp time diode will not work for any frequency with half wave >= 25 ns.

High frequency diodes are a must, and an "off the shelf" diode bridge will be worthless.

Paul Andrulis

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #415 on: June 26, 2008, 06:39:22 PM »
@aleks

You made some interesting observations. However, some things need adressed.

"In my opinion, "momentum" cannot exist with particles or bodies having no internal structure."

Photons and other electromagnetic phenomena have been demonstrated to have momentum. Momentum is based upon a moving mass. Notice I didn't say moving "matter".

I make this distinction as E=MC^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) works. Ask yourself what possible relationship exists that causes electromagnetic constants and transformations to be applicable in any form to mass..........

I did a post previously in this thread, I think a page back which covers this in much more depth. It may well clear up some confusion.

To spoil it somewhat, mass is not a property of matter ONLY. Read the post to find out why.

Truthfully, I am starting to lean in the direction that matter itself has no real internal structure, at below sub-particle level.  Basically I agree with Einstein on this. Matter IS TRULY energy.


Paul Andrulis

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #416 on: June 26, 2008, 07:22:06 PM »
Photons and other electromagnetic phenomena have been demonstrated to have momentum.
Momentum is based upon a moving mass. Notice I didn't say moving "matter".
Well, photons are waves, and are definitely massless. They of course have a momentum, but it is very strictly defined via E=hv * direction vector (or something else in that manner), so it's kind of "momentum of energy", not tied to mass (e.g. impact wave that propagates in air also carries a kind of momentum which will show force upon impact with any physical object).

I myself make a differentiation between particles and EM waves. Electro-magnetic waves may well be the same thing as acoustic waves, but propagating in a complex-numbered medium (vacuum or gaseous/crystalline-structured aether). Acoustic waves are strictly real-valued and thus have no polarization, but do have negative frequencies that accompany any acoustical vibration. I think anybody claiming EM waves as being transverse is giving an errorneous understanding in a hope to justify EM waves polarization. In complex-numbered space you do not need to "invent" transverse waves to model EM waves polarization: you just need to extend your vision and "see" complex-numbered reality (I'm finding it hard to visualize, but I'll try more), and understand the fact that longitudinal waves may carry polarization in such reality.

There should be ways to "convert" between particles and EM waves, but this probably is done at high energy densities and involves "time looping" I was mentioning already. Note that electron's electrostatic field may also be a complex-valued field with a "picture" that may unite all separate facts about electron.

And Einstein was dealing with subatomic bond energies. I find it pretty funny to see somebody mentions Einstein in relation to understanding of subparticle reality. His theories do not cover this. He helped promote atomic bomb that releases subatomic bond potential energy. It's like atomic chemistry - nothing more than that.

Today, "Electron->EM wave-> electron" conversions is a pseudoscience, nobody will be buying it for real.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2008, 07:50:50 PM by aleks »

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #417 on: June 29, 2008, 09:07:27 AM »
@aleks

You really need to share the punchline, as a joke must be understood to be funny.

The truth is, I am trying to understand your post, but it really doesn't make much sense upon close examination.

I can define many things using various formula myself, yet the formula I choose does not limit the application of other equally valid formula.

An impact wave of air is a MASS of air impacting a MASS of a physical object. It DOES tie in with the concept of a momentum of energy, which can also be defined with the formula from my last post on E=MC^2. E= quite literally means "pure energy is.......", and not "mass energy is.......", nor is it "EM energy is.....", or a number of other variations. I also would guarantee that the "apparent mass" of a photon, when plugged into E=MC^2/sqrt(1-V^2/c^2) is equal to hf...... (use the value of the speed of light in atmosphere to avoid the "undefined aspect of MC^2/0 = infinity garbage.)

I could go over everything, but I will be brief.

Concerning E=MC^2.......

Since

1. The concept of E=MC^2 was published in the neighborhood of 20-25 years before the Manhattan Project. The Manhattan Project was initiated BECAUSE of E=MC^2, not vice-versa. (The Manhattan Project was invention of the first nuclear weapon.)

2. E=MC^2 is derived using electromagnetic formula and constants. (You know, the ones governing EM waves.)

3. Photons have "apparent" demonstrable and demonstrated mass..... (Notice I emphasized "apparent", as there is nothing which is truly "unreal", "apparent", or "virtual" about anything.)

4. E=MC^2 by no means dealt with "ONLY" subatomic bonds. Where did you come up with this? If so, then the formula would have been misused and misapplied to determine the increase of mass with speed. (The very formula determinate that the photon itself cannot have mass and then travel at C itself. ;D )

5. E=E or the term "pure energy" which is the base definition of E in both E=MC^2, E=hf, etc.., is worthless and a figment since there would be no valid definition FOR E.

6. The mass of particles and sub-particles, are equally governed by the relationship of E=MC^2... (It is valid in BOTH the micro and macro scales.)

As far as it being funny. Kewl. Go for it. More power to ya! I just personally do not see what is so funny. Could be a simple difference of sense of humor. I like puns myself.

Paul Andrulis

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #418 on: June 29, 2008, 09:16:41 AM »
As far as it being funny. Kewl. Go for it. More power to ya! I just personally do not see what is so funny. Could be a simple difference of sense of humor. I like puns myself.
What was funny is attributing things Einstein didn't invent or even thought about. He's not some Almighty creator.

I insist that E=MC^2 basically works with subatomic bond energies ONLY. Yep, you may believe that when you "crack" an electron you'll get that much energy (MC^2), but until this is done and proven, it's a belief - not a reality. EM waves have no mass - and so I have no clue why you are trying to equate EM wave to particle mass. Until EM wave is converted into particle, it's a belief as well.

Formulas have their "field of application" - it's a fact. E=MC^2 simply tells you how much energy you can get after cracking a heavy atom into two lighter atoms (IF you can crack it). So, it basically shows how much BOND energy you can hope to acquire. There's nothing more about this formula.

Also, you probably know about "defect of mass" which makes E=MC^2 a little more complicated to use in practice.

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #419 on: June 29, 2008, 11:04:48 AM »
"Mass defect" is used to calculate "binding energy" I was referring to - this is what is being released in fission/fusion reactions. In this sense E=MC^2 covers binding energies only - it's not usable for particle creation/destruction. Well, of course you can (as physics does) split any particle into subparticles - but you'll probably have to do it infinitely until your particles are zero in size. The mechanism of particle (like quark or lepton) construction is undefined, and there is no accepted mechanics of this exist to my knowledge. At the moment physics is solely based on discovered particles.

Also do not forget that "energy" is never a separate phenomenon - it is whether kinetic/potential energy tied to a system of objects, or EM wave energy. Mass on the other hand is not a substance (matter). In many cases I read as someone trying to use "substance=energy" semantics while this is totally wrong. Mass is an attribute of substance, it is not a substance itself.

So, semantically, an intermix of particles changes mass AND defines binding energies. So, E=MC^2 basically equates mass to binding energies of a splittable structure.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 11:39:48 AM by aleks »