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 338505 times)

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #600 on: July 25, 2008, 04:56:32 AM »
Even when you are told that your pulses are crap you refuse to accept it.  Go ahead and drown in your self-gratifying BS.

Yes, grumpy, you are the master, the authority, the one guru here whom has complete and infallible understanding of all you survey. Your understanding of Tesla's works has relegated you into the position of religious leader for all Teslites.

Quote
You keep claiming that I misquote Tesla, yet you only repeat the hearsay and BS on the web about him.

All anyone has to do is go back in this very thread to discover that, concerning Tesla's own definition of radiant energy, his words were quoted, YOU stated his words incorrect. 

They were quoted directly from his own patent dealing with the subject, not just some "BS" on the web. Nice try, or should I say nice foot in mouth.. 

Quote
Come on Paul, try to prove me wrong.  You can't.  If you had any sense you would listen to every word I say and apply it, but you never will.

Concerning the wave phenomena, you were the only one right, which was VERY surprising. However, it changes nothing, as you would understand if you bothered to understand my initial posts. I SAID it was common. Now, you actually did post the common term for a common effect. You want a star? To quote you, "Whoop-de-dooo".

No kidding that a common effect has a common term also associated with it. 

I have sense, and now I intend to refuse to respond to your posts which are "attitudinal", to use slang.

Quote
  You could get rid of the neg pulses, clamp the crap out of the pos one (to raise them way above zero) and use them to excite a third coil - wa-la - RE coming out your ass.  But you won't even try cause you think we're all full of crap.


Why, when SM stated this device works off of magnetic fields, should I be concerned with RE?

You have also in the hubbard coil thread stated a position of mine wrong because of harmonics, and you referred as proof to the "magnifying transmitter" as proof. The only problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever linking the TPU tech with the magnifying transmitter tech. NONE. 

Quote
I'll keep trying to help you a little longer, but I am tiring.

I already stated I am tired of this, and more than hinted that your refusal to attempt to communicate with me is fine, actually more than just merely fine, it is desirable.

Quote
You made a rediculous statement to MIB and now you accuse Poynt99 and myself of being MIB?  Hillarious.
Allright - all BS and joking aside.  Let's move on.


I didn't say you were MIB, just that it is a possibility. I stated quite clearly that I assume you are POSERS. However, without proof nothing is truly ruled out, since what you do has the same overall effect..

Quote
About the differentiation, see attached image - notice the pulses coincide with the transitions of the square wave?  The top image is double differentiation - notice the pulse is tighter but you get a quick reversal at each pulse?

Good going.... You figured it out.

Now explain it, how it affects fields within the circuit, how it affects current flow, etc......

Paul Andrulis

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #601 on: July 25, 2008, 05:18:43 AM »
@Grumpy

Differentiation has NOTHING to do with op-amps?? (In what universe?)

Search Term:  differentiation op-amps
Search Engine: Yahoo
Results: 23700

But then again, I suppose you wouldn't listen to people like National Semiconductors, or how about this link to a college site:

http://www.ee.nmt.edu/~wedeward/EE212L/SP03/lab07.html

I believe that quoting you, I just "made your day punk"........

No more of this garbage. I will not respond further. You are speaking to the air.

Paul Andrulis

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #602 on: July 25, 2008, 05:25:05 AM »
Three pages almost completely wasted......... and worse, a monumental waste of my time and effort, except for maybe a few....


Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #603 on: July 25, 2008, 05:28:52 AM »
I like you, Paul!  You have salt - moxy - Grumption!  LOL! 

Attitudinal - now we are getting somewhere!  Come on Paul - room for two on a ten foot board - Whooo-hooo!!!

In reference to Tesla's patents for radiant energy - I'll clarify something for your benefit.  The sun spouts out huge quantities of RE - Tesla discovered how to produce this effect himself.  Look at the subsequent patents.

Have you ever seen Naudin's replication of Dollard's TEM - LMD demonstration?  Notice that the LMD circuit looks very much like a balanced high pass filter - only difference is the extra inductors.  What travels faster than EM?  LMD - Ding ding ding - we have a winner...

Explain the differentiated pulse - in what frame of reference.   I told you how to use it.  Does it matter how it works?  Hell, those little Grey Dudes don't even know what an electron is and they are all over the damn Galaxy.  All they know is that it works.

G

 



Yes, grumpy, you are the master, the authority, the one guru here whom has complete and infallible understanding of all you survey. Your understanding of Tesla's works has relegated you into the position of religious leader for all Teslites.

All anyone has to do is go back in this very thread to discover that, concerning Tesla's own definition of radiant energy, his words were quoted, YOU stated his words incorrect. 

They were quoted directly from his own patent dealing with the subject, not just some "BS" on the web. Nice try, or should I say nice foot in mouth.. 

Concerning the wave phenomena, you were the only one right, which was VERY surprising. However, it changes nothing, as you would understand if you bothered to understand my initial posts. I SAID it was common. Now, you actually did post the common term for a common effect. You want a star? To quote you, "Whoop-de-dooo".

No kidding that a common effect has a common term also associated with it. 

I have sense, and now I intend to refuse to respond to your posts which are "attitudinal", to use slang.


Why, when SM stated this device works off of magnetic fields, should I be concerned with RE?

You have also in the hubbard coil thread stated a position of mine wrong because of harmonics, and you referred as proof to the "magnifying transmitter" as proof. The only problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever linking the TPU tech with the magnifying transmitter tech. NONE. 

I already stated I am tired of this, and more than hinted that your refusal to attempt to communicate with me is fine, actually more than just merely fine, it is desirable.


I didn't say you were MIB, just that it is a possibility. I stated quite clearly that I assume you are POSERS. However, without proof nothing is truly ruled out, since what you do has the same overall effect..

Good going.... You figured it out.

Now explain it, how it affects fields within the circuit, how it affects current flow, etc......

Paul Andrulis

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #604 on: July 25, 2008, 05:48:08 AM »
Differentiation has NOTHING to do with op-amps?? (In what universe?)

You never even hear of a differentiator before I mentioned it - Mr. Extranious Cranial Capacity. 

A "passive differentiator circuit" (no op-amp in your circuit is there? no active components?) is usually a series capacitor and a shunt resistor. (See attached.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_differentiator_circuit

Ooooh - that right was like a sledge hammer - so take a knee and look it up again - Mr. Sherlock.

G



You are speaking to the air.

Not the "Air" - I am speaking to an idiot! - LOL!!!!

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #605 on: July 25, 2008, 05:53:33 AM »
Three pages almost completely wasted......... and worse, a monumental waste of my time and effort, except for maybe a few....

You learned more in those three pages than in three years.

By the way,  SM did not know that a field other than the magnetic and electric fields exists.  I bet he does now.

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #606 on: July 25, 2008, 05:59:34 AM »
CIVIL REPLY DELETED:
 

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #607 on: July 25, 2008, 06:09:22 AM »

@Ponyt,

I understand what your saying however to me it does not account for the way Paul
made the connections. I'm still thinking  my orginal post is closer even though
I did not get the correct voltage levels.

Your bucking coils I buy, but they are not bifilar and reflect the connection Paul
made.

The schematics will hopefully illustrate what I'm saying.

(http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7523/kickcir01ho3.jpg)


I appreciate your work in posting the models and hope you can see my point.



-Duff




@Paul,

you're right about your generator, my mistake. what threw me was your statement (i took it as fact) that you were getting 12V spikes, when in fact if you look at your scope shot again, you'll see that you are getting +10 and - 10V spikes. your scope gnd is not centered so you are actually showing +12V and - 8V. The difference is 20V, just as you would expect from +/- 5V input.

if i was to go back and change my generator to -5V and +5V, I would get the very same scope shot you have Paul.

so we're back to square one as far as i'm concerned. we got differentiation, nothing more. also, are you saying Paul that you already knew that your output was differentiation?

btw, wrt op-amps, the term is "differential amplifier", meaning difference amplifier. a mathematical difference. "differentiation" on the other hand is wrt computing the mathematical derivative of the input. they are not the same thing.

@ Duff,

Paul's drawing is showing 2 coils only, not 4. please correct your drawing. my schematic shows 2 coils (the transformer), and they are connected in phase reverse of each other.

my coils are closer to bifilar than Paul's are. Paul purposely did not wind his bifilar.

sorry, i'm not sure if i'm answering your questions.

duff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #608 on: July 25, 2008, 06:48:35 AM »

@ Duff,

Paul's drawing is showing 2 coils only, not 4. please correct your drawing. my schematic shows 2 coils (the transformer), and they are connected in phase reverse of each other.

my coils are closer to bifilar than Paul's are. Paul purposely did not wind his bifilar.

sorry, i'm not sure if i'm answering your questions.

@poynt99

Sorry, perhaps there is a gross misinterpretation on my part but I interpret the 4 circles in Pauls drawing as 2 bifilar coils and each bifilar has a seperate connection.

Look at the connections.

(http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7523/kickcir01ho3.jpg)

no 1 is connected to the outer circle and the inner most circle, L1 & L2 in my schematic.
no 2 is connected to the - well you see.

I count 4, so if it was intended as something else then my mistake.

I never dreamed this little explanation could go on this long - sure you didn't either. Sorry Paul.....


-Duff


pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #609 on: July 25, 2008, 06:48:40 AM »
@Poynt99

Yes, I knew in this instance that they would be differentiated. This system cannot oscillate, it cannot reflect, therefore only the differentiation effect is allowed in these coils at even close to what ordinarily would be a resonant or harmonic.

Differentiation by design, you might say.

We know that this effect also oscillates in a untuned coil circuit. Think of the spike resonating to nothing on the top of the square wave. You have seen it a thousand times, and it is a consequence of the initial effect. You see the spike at much lower voltage level, but caused initially by the same physical principles that caused the differentiated wave demonstrated by the scope shot, but allowed to resonate.

I warned everyone outright that what I was referring to was a common effect.

This resonation damps out normally, in an ordinary resonant coil circuit.

A "tuned" resonant circuit should give higher spike voltages and much higher oscillation for the duration of the half-wave.

Now, this is in consideration of just one frequency.

If you add in two more frequencies which are integrals of the first, they WILL combine (integrate). However, they will also have their OWN "spikes", and inherent oscillations.

Put this derivative "frequency" into a tuned resonant circuit......... and you should end up with a square wave with the top consisting of "kicks" . The waveform would resemble pulsed "spikes".

You may or may not agree with me up to this point, but it is the principle I am trying to demonstrate.

Why is it important? If it is accurate, then the apparent power changes. Notice I am making distinction of apparent verses real.

I refer to the principle that a coil can only react so fast to any change, and a coil already resonating to a given base frequency cannot at the drop of a hat change its resonance. The coil should "see" a square wave with the top being the peaks of the spikes. Changes which happen too fast for reaction times can cause interesting effects. It is "apparent" in that there is no real change of input power, but the coil "sees" itself being hit with more electrical force. 

At the very least, do you understand? (Not agree, just understand.)

Concerning the op-amp resistor capacitor in series to op-amp - . Resistor from op-amp - to out. Op-amp + to gnd. Feed square wave to -..... The simplest way I know to differentiate a wave, and come up with an almost identical waveform to what I posted. Yes I know differentiation is  mathematical, and so is integration which is related. Both differentiation and integration are usable wave functions achievable with op-amps, as well as amplification. So yes, you can differentiate a wave using op-amps, and that is what I was referring to.

Paul Andrulis

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #610 on: July 25, 2008, 07:15:48 AM »
@Duff

Now I see. You thought I posted four coils with my schematic. No there are just two single pancake, non-bifilar coils used for the experiment.

I had to use two circles to demonstrate the inner and outer windings of each coil. I am lousy at free-handed drawing of spirals in MSpaint.

It is not your fault, it is mine. Sorry for the confusion.

Paul Andrulis

duff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #611 on: July 25, 2008, 07:42:48 AM »
@Duff

Now I see. You thought I posted four coils with my schematic. No there are just two single pancake, non-bifilar coils used for the experiment.

I had to use two circles to demonstrate the inner and outer windings of each coil. I am lousy at free-handed drawing of spirals in MSpaint.

It is not your fault, it is mine. Sorry for the confusion.

Paul Andrulis

@Paul

Wheeee...what a ride.

Well thank you for clearing that up.


-Duff

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #612 on: July 25, 2008, 08:07:23 AM »
@duff

Wheeeee.... (I feel it to my bones...)

You know what is bad about all of this?

In a situation where as much energy as possible is self canceling, not one has noticed that, wave differentiation-definitions-add infenitum, CEMF and opposing fields should have killed the spike deader than disco. Quite literally almost all of the energy should have been used in negating field action and the rest by cemf.

We are not talking about capacitance-resistor shunts, not op-amps, nor pure mathematics, just two simple coils, and a series short duration 10v or so spikes which shouldn't exist, or at least be damped into almost non-existance.

The experiment which led me to this was almost identical in construction, and was built to examine the magnetic field effects of this type of a coil setup with an eye towards field rotation. I found the differentiation, and had to say then "what the heck?".

Though I knew it would in this experiment, because of my previous experiment, sharp, pure differentiation to the best of my knowledge should not have occurred.

I mean, you put a resistor in a circuit, you expect a voltage drop. You place a capacitor, you expect a blockage of DC. What is it you feel, when you measure a circuit, and all of a sudden the resistor has voltage gain, or the capacitor is conducting DC without an internal short?

EM maybe posted something to consider, I will have to ponder his words.

Paul Andrulis

innovation_station

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5134
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #613 on: July 25, 2008, 04:54:11 PM »
im at the point where you guys bore me lol

im no longer gonna add infos here ....

you dont use it anyways

my mot is just about finished look for my pictures ...

seams to do as i wanted it to ....

do tell me im wrong ...

so how will i start my tpu with out the use of a battery can it be done  :P

sure it can im gonna use a bbq igniter to fill my caps from a pluse or 2 then i will hook my switching motor to the oput put of the cap when the motor starts to spinn all after that is FREE ENGERY DUH!!

as i said my mots donot consume engery   only my motor ....and hey i may just drop a coil on top of the rotating magnetic switch to generate extra engery  for well i dont know cuz i CAN!!!

IST  8)

OOOPSSS  DID I JUST CLOSE THE LOOP  8)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #614 on: July 25, 2008, 11:07:31 PM »
it looks like there's nothing more i can help with here, so it's back to square one for me (not that we really left square one LOL)

thanks for doing the test though Paul.