Author Topic: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU (Read 281281 times)

Grumpy · « **Reply #45 on:** April 20, 2007, 08:06:29 PM »

Otto,

Since no one else has asked:

What is the diameter of your 50-turn coil?

Do you have an inductance meter to measure the inductance of this coil? If not, it can be calculated from the dimensions. Another way is to use a known inductance value - using the old school method.

What is the length of the wire for the 50-turn coil? You gave the wire diameter before, but include it as well to keep the information together.

Failed duplications call for more data - such as voltage and current readings. Place an amp meter in there and get some data.

gn0stik · « **Reply #46 on:** April 20, 2007, 08:34:51 PM »

Renssaek,

Your collector is also twisted to reduce flux. That would have a big effect on your results. However our experiment using lamp wire did not help us achieve anything better.

Rich

Grumpy · « **Reply #47 on:** April 20, 2007, 09:21:13 PM »

If everyone wound their coils like a "Brooks coil":

http://home.san.rr.com/nessengr/techdata/brooks/brooks.html

Then this set of "circuit variables" will be about the same.

(One of you has an inductance meter or a known inductor to determine the actual inductance of the coil.)

With the difference in other circuit elements, a little tuning may be necessary.

This will make it easier to duplicate each other's experiments.

EDIT:

Example - using first equation in above link:

With coil thickness of .6 cm, 50 turns - the inductance is 38.2 micro-Henries
(This coil would have a mean radius of 1.5 x .6 cm = 0.9 cm)

gn0stik · « **Reply #48 on:** April 21, 2007, 07:33:15 AM »

Nothing more from Otto? Dang, I was hoping we'd get more details.

FatBird · « **Reply #49 on:** April 24, 2007, 01:42:24 AM »

I too built Otto's circuit & could NOT get anything to light.

I even tried 100 turns, & still nothing.

==================================================
ChemTrails, ChemTrails, What's in your sky?
Google it.
.

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #50 on:** April 24, 2007, 02:43:34 AM »

mflynn44 · « **Reply #51 on:** April 24, 2007, 06:30:34 PM »

About seven months ago, when Otto first posted this simple T.P.U. circuit, I build the circuit and tested it but didn't see anything of interest. Over the last four days I again built his circuit to his specifications, tested it, and again see nothing except what you would expect. Basically, more power is dropped across the bulb the higher the frequency and/or greater the duty cycle until about 50 KHz when my bulb starts to dim. Probably, the bulb dims because of the increasing filament inductance. I don't see any excess energy being generated. It makes no difference if the loop of wire is through the 50 turn coil or not. I'm finished with this Otto replication and will work on something more promising.

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #52 on:** April 24, 2007, 09:58:39 PM »

tao · « **Reply #53 on:** April 24, 2007, 11:10:22 PM »

Let it be known, my below post isn't MEAN, it is just the truth...

Funny isn't it, you claim to know the secrets, yet you just re-quote SM and merely say 'just do it! then send me a working device'. You are claiming that you found the secret, lol, you only just found some of SM's words... Now you try to make it seem like you figured something out!

What don't you describe the EXACT MECHANISM OF THE OVERUNITY GAIN IN THE TPU!?!? Can you do that?

Or will you just re-quote SM again...

Another thing, you said:

"I am using 6BQ7-A TUBES for the input and phase inverter.....and so you can imagine how CRYSTAL CLEAR my HIGH FREQUENCIES are..." (p.s. You just thought he was talking about his stereo! LOL)

Do you ACTUALLY believe that we thought he was talking about his stereo?!? Are you serious?!?

Your intentions are well, but your aptitude for the TPU isn't.

In addition, in your first long post on the TPU, you are quoting all these quotes of SMs, but guess what? Many of those supposed SM quotes that are the basis of your theory, aren't even from SM!

I am bringing this all to light so that everyone reading this doesn't get excited over nothing...

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #54 on:** April 25, 2007, 02:21:07 AM »

UncleFester · « **Reply #55 on:** April 25, 2007, 02:43:27 AM »

It's okay. His intentions are good. The only problem is that many have tried exactly what you are talking about with limited results.

Spark gaps require high voltage, and that has not yet been tried yet. But the multiple frequencies and fifteen different pulsing schemes, even multiple control coils on top of one another etc have been tried. None of them have yet to produce any significant output. Well, let me re-state, not any output similar to Mark's device (1000 to 1+ OU).

I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone else. It's just that it's much more complex than we all thought at first. I am still very optimistic, but the facts so far show that it's a deeper secret than no one has figured out yet.

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #56 on:** April 25, 2007, 03:05:47 AM »

Motorcoach1 · « **Reply #57 on:** April 25, 2007, 03:37:06 AM »

Just learn some electronics it's not that hard and you woun't have to talk about toy cars that don't run.

tao · « **Reply #58 on:** April 25, 2007, 04:15:01 AM »

So, you want to play the 'I'm not technical, so that is how I could see through SM's words'-CARD...

Well, let me ask you this!!!

You are saying that you understand the TPU based on what SM said. That must mean that you take into account EVERYTHING that SM said, right?!?!

Well, did you happen to read SM's post where he says that the MAGNETS ARE NOT NEEDED FOR THE TPU TO WORK?

Based on you saying that you READ and LISTENED to SM, why did you happen to disregard that post? SM said that the TPU had to be able to start via a magnet, to show that it truely was OU, because people didn't like seeing any batteries in his devices. And yes, SM said that in his first devices he used batteries, but only to power the control circuitry. Maybe you need to read more...

You are getting all these guy's poor hopes up with your large posts where you blatantly say that you have the answer, even though you have not made a simple coil! What a shame...

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #59 on:** April 25, 2007, 04:39:02 AM »

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU (Read 281281 times)

Grumpy

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

gn0stik

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

Grumpy

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

gn0stik

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

FatBird

Re: Otto`s Circuit.

Bruce_TPU

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

mflynn44

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

Bruce_TPU

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

tao

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

Bruce_TPU

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

UncleFester

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

Bruce_TPU

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

Motorcoach1

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

tao

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

Bruce_TPU

Re: Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU