Dave,

I think that what is shown is the document is a circuit tuned to such frequencies so it doesn't give up too much energy - but enough for safe experimentation.

I'm guessing that if you try to tune closer to the 'right' frequencies then the unit would produce more...

Peter

Before anyone attempts to replicate Otto's and Roberto's we need to fill in a few gaps in knowledge. For instance, I have already raised the issue about the Mosfet drive. Did Otto and Roberto drive their output Mosfets at 6V gate voltage? No answer yet. If they did then the Mosfet heatsinks were getting hot for obvious reasons and their observations on PSU current and temperature are consistent with this and it follows that their conclusions may be incorrect. To test the 'hot' aluminium theory, drive the Mosfets at the correct gate voltage and thereby keep them in their SOA. Having done this, heat a piece of aluminium using a seperate power source and insert it close to the TPU and observe / record then compare results with the original data.

We see a very dimly lit light bulb. What was the measured voltage across this bulb and the current through it? OK I appreciate that a DVM reading of a complex waveform is rather meaningless but at least it gives us all a comparative baseline to work with.  IMO the average power was well under 30W. Does the bulb stay illuminated at the same level for the duration that the PSU volts drop? This question was raised by Stephan and is also unaswered.

I disagree with the interpretation of the waveforms. The traces described as emerging sine waves are IMO the on to off transitions of the Mosfet's. The sharp voltage spikes occur at the current cessation in the coils, followed by the coil discharge. These look complicated and a perhaps a bit sinus in nature because there is a lot of 'ringing' and overlapping in the traces. There will be a number of sub-harmonic resonant points in a frequency sweep and these will produce current peaks and troughs which will translate into variations of bulb brightness. However, I suggest that the capacity of the PSU will dictate the maximum level of bulb illumination with the given coil and driver design. The throughput efficiency may be approx 40 -50% so using a PSU that can deliver 5Amps @ 12V,  a 60W mains lamp should illuminate at a respectable level with careful tuning.

Hello all,

@Hoppy

the work was done without MOSFET drivers. I have 3 oscillators connected directly to the gates of my MOSFETs. They are directly mounted on 3 heatsinks.
Yesterday while pulsing  my coils, the Alluminium was very hot and I touched the MOSFET: just warm. But the MOSFET is DIRECTLY mounted on the Aluminium. Oh, yes, everything is normal.
The sinuses in the pictures are not 100% formed. I did it and the result is known.
Nobody of you sees anything unusual. Good, no problem.

If allowed, a question to all the people who are surching for excess energy, looking and asking about the power supply measurments, asking a lot of questions about everything:

Did you try to replicate my setup, my coils???.....had you a little time for it???....

Dont answer, I will do it:     NO!!!!

Thanks, but please dont question before you built it.

Otto

Hi all,

@Jason,
very, very good work please get my compliments. It's just like this! So go on and let me know soon. I'm anxious to check your tests.

@all,
I do know that's real difficult to accept it. It has been for myself as well as I'm a standard college educated guy. I do understand and respect all the opinions. Of course you all ,in a way or the other, are contributing to advance this knowledge. There are, as you have seen, key points: 'The Seed' is just one of them: IT'S REAL IT APPEARED IN FRONT OF OUR EYES. IT CAN'T BE DENIED! In our opinion is THE KEY to open 'the Gate'. If you will built the ECD you'll see it with your eyes: please dont question before you build it. Power measuremet: we are scared. At least let us have the right time to do something to assure our safety before pushing up the 'conversion' process (one time runaway it's enought).

Regards

Roberto

Hello all,

@Hoppy

in the picture is my future way to connect my MOSFETs. The only point is that my oscillators are far away to be good. At my crash I didnt notice that all my 3 oscillators crashed too. Not burned but the values of my used elements changed...couldnt see this without a scope.

Connect just DIRECTLY your oscillators to the gates of your MOSFETs. I hope the output voltage from your oscillators are not over 20V.
Dont worry, my MOSFETs are driven very well.
You forgot something: The MOSFETs MUST be inside thr TPU. Why??

Otto

[snip]
You forgot something: The MOSFETs MUST be inside thr TPU. Why??
Otto

Sorry Otto for being so exact, do you mean inside the 6" outer ring or inside the 4" ring?

I can very easily see some experiments where I want to put the FETs and ALU between the two rings.

Regards, Earl

Quote from: z_p_e on June 11, 2007, 08:22:16 AM

[snip]
Since there is an INPUT and an OUTPUT power that can be measured, the COP can easily be calculated.
Darren

Daren, All,

Let us just imagine that in device xyz, which looks like a black box, there are two inputs and an output.  The black box itself however only has one physical input and one physical output.  The second input can not be seen, felt, or smelled.

Now I put in a catalyst signal and I measure the power consumption.  It is 10 Watts.
I measure output power as 50 Watts.  Frequency is f1.

Now I do nothing but change the frequency to f2.  Power input stays at 10 Watts, but output power is now 150 Watts.

I change the frequency to f3. Power input stays at 10 Watts, but output power is now 1500 Watts.

I change the frequency to f4. Power input stays at 10 Watts, but output power is now 1.5 MegaWatts.

Is this device overunity or underunity?
(Hint: answer can be: UU, OU, both, or neither)

If overunity, what is its COP?  How do you calculate COP, and do you include the input power that you can not smell?

For such a device does talk about input or output power make any sense?

Perhaps, one should place more emphasis on the term:  excess power and forget about COP???

Regards, Earl

Hi Earl,

The terms free energy, overunity and COP do require some more definitions I think!  What does free energy mean, just that, no cash required?  Solar panels and wind power are "free energy" they are also COP>1 since COP only is caring about what you have to pay for on the input.  The solar panel is 15% efficient, but the COP is greater than one.

The term overunity to me is meaningless.  We cannot create something from nothing, if we have an excess it must have been converted from some other source by our device, so with the TPU we do not get more out than we put in, in total.  We get out the battery source to the oscillators and the amount of energy we freely converted, minus losses.  Its just that part of this source we had to pay for the other source was free, but we dont get out more than 100% of the total input, ie the battery power and the "aether" input combined, one part is free the other is not.

The TPU would therefore be COP>1 since we can get out more than we PAY for ie, the battery source.  We can therefore calculate the COP of the device by comparing the output power to the battery source power taken.  But the overall officiency is not greater than 100%.

The term by SM "these are not free energy devices they are conversion devices" is also meaningless and just designed not to scare his employers or investors off.  Do you have to pay for  the power you are getting?  NO, then its free energy.  Are you greating something from nothing, NO.  Are you converting an unknown form of energy to electricity, YES.  The conversion happens for free.

So this is a FREE ENERGY DEVICE, with COP greater than one, but overall efficiency well below 100% due to heat losses.  This is how I would sum it up and indeed ANY free energy device since it must always rely on the free conversion of another source.  You can never convert from nothing, so this one definition fits all free energy devices!

I just see no evidence of COP greater than one in this case.  I hope that when Otto and Roberto feel safer handling it they will crank it up and show this to be true.

I do not know why you all believe there to be COP>1 when it has not been shown in the document with any tests!  If it can be shown, I will be more than happy to spend yet more money on this project and wind yet another TPU and duplicate the conversion process to produce excess energy, but while NONE has been shown yet, I dont see the point.  I have other projects that I am working on at the moment and I cannot just give them up when no excess energy has been proven or shown yet!



Regards to all,


Dave.