Author Topic: Successful TPU-ECD replication ! (Read 1145641 times)

kokomoj0 · « **Reply #180 on:** June 14, 2007, 05:31:18 PM »

Quote from: btentzer on June 14, 2007, 04:18:06 PM

You are on the verge of being made believers very soon.

i do hope you are right! but it will take nothing less than a true rms test to prove it to me k?

kokomoj0 · « **Reply #181 on:** June 14, 2007, 05:36:51 PM »

Quote from: c0mster on June 14, 2007, 05:24:15 PM

I did try adding 2 frequencies and the amps jumped to 7 but the frequency on the second was fighting the first so I got less results. As well I have a floating ball compass in the middle of the TPU but did not see any spin yet. But we need 3 frequencies matched properly to achieve this.
Cam

you
It has been some time since i read that long posting with all the marks comments but if i remember correctly he said something to the effect that you have to line up all the frequencies or the harmonics or something along those lines.

Of course i asked the question a long time ago: How does any one plan on doing that?

maybe i read it wrong or misinterpreted it.

chrisC · « **Reply #182 on:** June 14, 2007, 05:42:04 PM »

Quote from: kokomoj0 on June 14, 2007, 05:28:22 PM

...... and the unknown electrical club.

Hi koko:

Even though I disagree with most of your other rants, I've got to give you this one!
LOL

cheers
chrisC

c0mster · « **Reply #183 on:** June 14, 2007, 05:54:09 PM »

I thought I just stated in my last post that true input and output wattage needs to be determined, we need to do this be it windows motor, that guy with the newman motor, or the SM device. Please be patient, myself and the others are working real hard to provide real evidence. The end result = output cap same farad as input cap. Input cap charged ? unit started ? output caps exceeds voltage of input cap or feedback blows input cap as well as output. No battery should be needed in any of these devices. Caps love radiant energy.

@kokomoj0 How does any one plan on doing that?

If you notice Otto?s wiring diagram you will see that really we are sending the pulses into a common ground. To create the hash we need 3 timers out of sync. The goal it to provide a hash of waves that create a mess or do not quite blend, be it 103.7 degrees out of phase but may be in harmonic at higher values. But I will not state this is correct until I test it.

Cheers

kokomoj0 · « **Reply #184 on:** June 14, 2007, 06:04:40 PM »

1 Watt = 1 Joule / 1 sec

1 Joule per second equals 1 Watt.

As you can all easily see by the calculator in the link below that using filte5red DC will in fact give accurate answers.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-ohm.htm

If you have a pulse that is 10 volts perfectly square wave for 1 millisecond into a 10 ohm load that yields 10 watts, but here is the catch it is 10 watts for only 1 millisecond and there are 1000 milliseconds in 1 sec.

So an equivalent DC wattage then would require 1000 1Ms pulses with no gaps or pure DC.

Then:
The real power is 10/1000 = .01 watts rms and rms wattage is the equivalent dc wattage or what is known as "true power" in the industry for those who are not familiar with it.

So there is where I am coming from.

kokomoj0 · « **Reply #185 on:** June 14, 2007, 06:07:25 PM »

Quote from: c0mster on June 14, 2007, 05:54:09 PM

I thought I just stated in my last post that true input and output wattage needs to be determined, we need to do this be it windows motor, that guy with the newman motor, or the SM device. Please be patient, myself and the others are working real hard to provide real evidence.

Kool! i will have a cold one then and await your results

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #186 on:** June 14, 2007, 06:15:26 PM »

@ Com

Your control coils looked to be made from single strand magnetic wire. Is this the case? The replication calls for STRANDED.

Also 7 amps output from your P/S in wire rated at 2.2 amps....Hmm....and they did not melt and burn up...hmm....I wonder why! LOL Think about it!

And besides this, you used a different circuit then the one posted. So this IS NOT a replication but your own ideas mixed with a properly wound coil. PLEASE RE READ Roberto on the NEW FAQ THREAD and then build it EXACTLY TO SPECS and then post.

Keeping it honest,
Bruce

gn0stik · « **Reply #187 on:** June 14, 2007, 06:26:10 PM »

Quote from: kokomoj0 on June 14, 2007, 06:07:25 PM

Quote from: c0mster on June 14, 2007, 05:54:09 PM
I thought I just stated in my last post that true input and output wattage needs to be determined, we need to do this be it windows motor, that guy with the newman motor, or the SM device. Please be patient, myself and the others are working real hard to provide real evidence.

Kool! i will have a cold one then and await your results

Hey Koko, we're all in a quest for answers here. You seem very knowlegable and capable. Any help testing would be appreciated. It's not very hard to build, and doesn't take much time/money. At this point, I have to say, the position you have taken from the very start, and your contemptuous attitude is not very conducive to someone wanting to perform tests for you, while you mock us, and what we've done. As far as we know, we could go ahead and perform your tests, and you would not accept them anyway, as you probably view us as being biased. Perhaps the tests would be more believable to you, if you performed them for yourself? You after all would be the most logical to perform those tests, as you would no doubt be doing it from a different perspective, and could perhaps be more objective?

Ideally it would be good to just drop the device off at some highschool or college, and have them perform the tests, as they probably have not heard of the device and have formed no opinions whatsoever.

Perhaps, you could save everyone a whole bunch of time by quantifying, and qualifying output?

You would definitely satisfy a lot of curiosity, and would be doing the community a favor.

BTW I'm a brewer and kindof a beer snob. I don't think you wanna spend the kinda money it would take to buy me a case of my favorite beer.

Regards,
Rich

chrisC · « **Reply #188 on:** June 14, 2007, 06:33:03 PM »

Bruce:

As far as I know (I may be wrong), there is no electrical difference between the stranded and un-stranded magnet wire. Stranded wire is structurally better made and will not kink easily(?), for all intents and purposes they are the same, I think.

chrisC

gn0stik · « **Reply #189 on:** June 14, 2007, 06:40:14 PM »

Quote from: btentzer on June 14, 2007, 06:15:26 PM

@ Com

Your control coils looked to be made from single strand magnetic wire. Is this the case? The replication calls for STRANDED.

no, and wrong

Quote

Also 7 amps output from your P/S in wire rated at 2.2 amps....Hmm....and they did not melt and burn up...hmm....I wonder why! LOL Think about it!

And besides this, you used a different circuit then the one posted. So this IS NOT a replication but your own ideas mixed with a properly wound coil. PLEASE RE READ Roberto on the NEW FAQ THREAD and then build it EXACTLY TO SPECS and then post.

Keeping it honest,
Bruce

I don't know what you were looking at, Bruce, but Cam's is almost identical to Jason's. Oh, and he HAS read it, and has built it very close to specs. The specs which you apparently MISREAD!

The reason I say "very close" instead of "exactly", is because we're not using european wire guagues, and there are some vaugeries that have yet to be addressed in the document. Can you point them out? Oh, and by the way, he did light a bulb.

Or can I ask how your replication is coming? If you want to critisize someone about their build and tell them to not post until they have built "exactly to specs"(all in caps) perhaps you should refrain from posting until you have built "exactly to specs", and tested? And perhaps you should go back and read it AGAIN! instead of skimming it, and calling that good enough. Reading comprehension is your friend.

This should be entertaining. Just keeping it honest you know.

Rich

wattsup · « **Reply #190 on:** June 14, 2007, 06:47:29 PM »

@otto

Good, good and good. I will build it. It is easier than to ask a million questions that I have runing in my mind. This WILL be fun. I'll make the protective screen first. I want to keep my inerds intack.

@Stefan

Can you add a post in the Q&A section giving the link to the pdf document(s) and update as new doc are made..

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2235.0;attach=95207

Plus here is a question to Otto.
1) Did you use the 22.5mm per inch rule when calculating the coil wire lengths.

@chrisC
I have a pdf document that I always thought was a patent from SM. I will post it here when I get back to my home computer later today.

c0mster · « **Reply #191 on:** June 14, 2007, 06:49:12 PM »

Quote from: btentzer on June 14, 2007, 06:15:26 PM

@ Com

Your control coils looked to be made from single strand magnetic wire. Is this the case? The replication calls for STRANDED.

Also 7 amps output from your P/S in wire rated at 2.2 amps....Hmm....and they did not melt and burn up...hmm....I wonder why! LOL Think about it!

Say what, control coils are bifilar single strand primary and secondary... well that?s what I read, and collector around the rigs are multi strand. My TPU is a clone of Jason?s and I followed the tpu pdf. Have I got something wrong? Then both me and Jason got it wrong. The driving ctc, well as long as we get the pulse right , Jason was using a function generator with 50% duty mosfets. Mosfet, NPN transistor, hand switch <well maybe 180k by hand is not possible> ?.., many ways to achieve the same result. My power supply is a 12volt motorbike battery. Do you know how many amps those puppies can put out? Try it with a 50amp meter and hook it direct for a split second and see. Try to see how long you can short 28meg wire before it burns up. I have done all these tests. Gad if I can get the same results as Otto or Jason using just a battery not a mains power supply then I must have something right?. At least I hope so

I guess as long as I achieve the same results as Otto, Roberto, Jason and anyone else trying it I should be ok?. If not I?ll start again.

Cam

otto · « **Reply #192 on:** June 14, 2007, 07:18:36 PM »

Hello all,

@wattsup

I tried with 22,5mm, hmmm....as Im waiting for my scope I cant answer exactly. 22,5mm for the inch and then same weight for primary and secondary, again,hmmm....

Looks good but as I cant see my signals...sorry.

Otto

Merkhava · « **Reply #193 on:** June 14, 2007, 07:33:54 PM »

Regarding questions to UEC ...

@ Lindsay,

I am very curious why UEC has not made the TPU available to the public either by commercially making a product for sale, or at least licensing it out to those who will manufacture it?

The SM demonstration videos were made ten years ago, yet UEC has apparently done nothing substantial with the patent. From my point of view, the patent seems to have degraded into a means to essentially gag SM and suppress the technology from being brought to market.

Isn't it reasonable to expect UEC to produce a product? And if they do not have the deep pocket backing and factory assests, then why not at least give other enterprises the right to manufacture?

If Radiant Energy technology was allowed to supersede Fossil Fuel energy, all these recent wars in the Balkans and Middle East would possibly never have happened. I mean, isn't "The War of Terror" essentially a disguised Resource War for domination of what's left of the "Oil Patch"?

I firmly believe that energy emancipation is the most fundamental issue that prevents human civilization from making the next big leap forward. So why not change the world for the better? What is there to fear? Less pollution? Less poverty? Less war? Potentially diminished CO2 emissions that may factor into climate change?

Robby

bob.rennips · « **Reply #194 on:** June 14, 2007, 08:03:39 PM »

Quote from: Merkhava on June 14, 2007, 07:33:54 PM

.....If Radiant Energy technology was allowed to supersede Fossil Fuel energy, all these recent wars in the Balkans and Middle East would possibly never have happened. I mean, isn't "The War of Terror" essentially a disguised Resource War for domination of what's left of the "Oil Patch"?

I firmly believe that energy emancipation is the most fundamental issue that prevents human civilization from making the next big leap forward. So why not change the world for the better? What is there to fear? Less pollution? Less poverty? Less war? Potentially diminished CO2 emissions that may factor into climate change?

Robby

The whole western world particularly, and many other countries have economies that rely on the printing of the dollar. The only reason the dollar has any value is because trading and buying of the majority of the world's oil is in dollars. Therefore countries have to hold reserves of dollars. This whole scenario holds up a massive amount of debt. There is also staggering amounts of debt in all the energy infrastructure.

Now move to a scenario where 'free' energy become available. Previously prosperous countries will be saddled with huge amount of debt, and ironically move into third world status. Countries with natural resources such as Africa and Australia (whay hay!!) will benefit the most, as will third world countries without vast amounts of debt.

India, Africa, China, Russia will become dominant forces in the world. Wealthy, powerful, political families that have their wealth based on oil will be decimated.

In the short term, the social upheaval will be huge. This, coupled with the loss of wealth and power is what fuels the current status quo, and prevents this sort of technology getting out.

However, global warming, oil shortages, potable water shortages (free energy would solve this overnight as saltwater could be desalinated) means the world has to go through this 'burning' in order for the phoenix to rise out of the ashes, so to speak.

Onwards and upwards.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Successful TPU-ECD replication ! (Read 1145641 times)

kokomoj0

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

kokomoj0

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

chrisC

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

c0mster

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

kokomoj0

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

kokomoj0

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

Bruce_TPU

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

gn0stik

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

chrisC

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

gn0stik

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

wattsup

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

c0mster

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

otto

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

Merkhava

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

bob.rennips

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !